The biggest difference I hear between digital and analog

[microstrip]

As is often the case in these discussions, Micro, I can only answer with what I've said many times before:
1. The only reality your media and your playback system knows is the recording. It has no other model of the real instruments or the space they were recorded in to examine and reform into its output, so anything it adds is distortion.

Yes, but the bad guys who design the electronics (and all the system and the room, BTW) know pretty well the real and the recording system. And they think they can improve your perception of the content of the recording.

Are we counting on distortions, over which we have no control, to accidentally make our listening experience more real?

You are right on spot, but in my view wrong – not accidentally. The good designers have control on these parameters (by suppression of some distortions, addition of some others, in a single word, by manipulation) and know how to make systematically the experience more real, and consequently more pleasant (according to some perceptual studies humans feel that what sounds real is comfortable and non natural distortions are felt as unpleasant – OK, I am again partially quoting Toole, that you dislike). They know, most probably with measurements and models they do not share with us (remember they are the bad guys ) how to “tailor” the electronics to increase, for typical good recordings, to become more pleasant. And later, at the production phase, they know how to keep these characteristics under control.

2) I hear the "sound of room ambience" that Jack refers to in the analog noise floor; I've mentioned it before. Clearly it can create a very pleasing effect for some folks. Not my preference, but enjoy it, I'll make no attempt to spoil your fun unless you start substituting descriptors for accuracy (real, natural, life-like, truth, yadayada...) in a thinly-veiled attempt to position a preference as objectively superior to mine. That's when I'm likely to repeat this often-repeated arguement...

Noise can not recreate the proper spaciousness … Jack already answered to this point.

3) I know "real," on a level that very few here can relate to. (…)Tim

No comments on this one.

 

[Soundproof]

I think it's both. I think audiophiles...not all, but I don't quite know how do differentiate them...take lots of liberties with natural sound. Sibilance is a good example. The real impact of upper midrange transients is another. But they do it in denial. They won't invest a grand in a nice pro-quality eq to reduce sibilance where they find it, but they will invest many thousands of dollars in gear that reduces sibilance and softens hard transients for them quietly, invisibly, and completely out of their control, in a way that can be assumed to be pure, not manipulated.

I think the poster child for this syndrome is the DAC with a tube output stage.

Tim

The crusade against sibilance has always mystified me, and does also indicate that a hifi-person who is very wary of it can't have listened to much actual singing and playing, in acoustic environments. A fear of a perceived technical imperfection was allowed to smear reality until actual fidelity was lost ... when fidelity is supposed to be the goal.

You mention mid-range transients. I have found that many aren't aware that it's the initial transient which decides how the brain decodes the steady state tone that follows, and that our perception is also aided by the nature of how the decay is initiated, following the steady-state tone. A system that actively seeks to suppress sibilance is probably counteracting the correct expression of these two critical components of the tone perception, as particularly the initial transient can be filled with energy extremes that are often chaotic.
Experiments have shown that people can't distinguish a violin from a flute when the transients have been removed, and they are left to evaluate only the respective steady-state tones -- then guess what happens to the fidelity of the reproduction when the transients are hobbled by fear of sibilance?

The OP writes: "For whatever reason, the top end on both LP and tape sounds like it is blown wide open compared to digital. It just sounds like it goes on forever."

Is that a 'correct' description? Is it valid for all resolutions of digital, compared to LP or tape? Is it what actually happens when we compare analog to digital? Or is it a delivered trope, which is repeated without examination? Is it valid when compared to a true high-resolution recording/playback chain in digital?

If we consider the Tape Project releases, the absolute majority of these has been recorded with microphones incapable of registering above 16kHz, so what's "blowing wide open", as per the OP? I would think that possibly the first release, with Naylor, may have been recorded with microphones that cover a wider frequency range, as it's a recent production. But most are from decades ago, and the microphones used dropped off in the mid-teens.

Therefore, what accounts for the open spaces of analog, compared to digital? Is it just that we know the Nyquist-ceiling is there, and therefore are prejudiced, while conveniently forgetting the vintage microphone ceiling?

 

[Robh3606]

This is an interesting thread. I never looked at vinyl surface noise as a "good thing". Back in the day I had a Phase Linear 4000 preamp with a noise reduction/gate system among other things to help reduce it. It was an easy set-up to use and actually did a good job of masking the noise. I thought it improved things for the better.

I think it's an odd point of view that record surface noise is a good thing. I have turntable set-up in my 2 channel system but rarely use it becasue of noise. There was a time when I could happly listen to LP's for hours on end that time is over. I am so conditioned to the no noise of digital media that I find it very difficult to ignore.

Rob

 

[MylesBAstor]

If we consider the Tape Project releases, the absolute majority of these has been recorded with microphones incapable of registering above 16kHz, so what's "blowing wide open", as per the OP? I would think that possibly the first release, with Naylor, may have been recorded with microphones that cover a wider frequency range, as it's a recent production. But most are from decades ago, and the microphones used dropped off in the mid-teens.

Therefore, what accounts for the open spaces of analog, compared to digital? Is it just that we know the Nyquist-ceiling is there, and therefore are prejudiced, while conveniently forgetting the vintage microphone ceiling?

What about the four Reference Recordings tapes done on Keith's custom modded deck and modded mikes that have been reissued by TTP? We know from interviews from Keith that the ambience on RR is from touchup mikes. The Dave Alvin, Robert Cray, Linda Ronstadt, Staple Singers and The Band are pretty recent. Little Hatch was also recorded very recently by Chad but is essentially guitar and vocal. Also, what about the two Deccas released on TTP, the Bruch/Hindemith and Suite Espanola? Agreed the jazz selections are a little soft in the upper octaves.

 

[microstrip]

(...) If we consider the Tape Project releases, the absolute majority of these has been recorded with microphones incapable of registering above 16kHz, so what's "blowing wide open", as per the OP? I would think that possibly the first release, with Naylor, may have been recorded with microphones that cover a wider frequency range, as it's a recent production. But most are from decades ago, and the microphones used dropped off in the mid-teens.

Soundproof,

Can you list the albums of the Tapeproject that used microphones incapable of registering above 16 kHz?

Jazz experts will correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I have read the Sonny Rollins 'Way out West' of 1957 (my birth year ) used the tube AKG Model C 12 multi-directional condenser microphone introduced in 1953 and having a response of 20-20000Hz .

http://www.coutant.org/akgc12/

Unless indicated otherwise, I see no reason why the majority of the tapes, recorded much later, were recorded using microphones with so poor frequency response, unless purposely wanted by the sound engineers.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Experiments have shown that people can't distinguish a violin from a flute when the transients have been removed, and they are left to evaluate only the respective steady-state tones -- then guess what happens to the fidelity of the reproduction when the transients are hobbled by fear of sibilance?

I know this is true because I've worked with sampling keyboards and know that without velocity-sensitive keyboards and good attack transients, instruments can be very hard to identify, even when the samples are very good. Fortunately this isn't much of a problem in audio reproduction. It's not hard to distinguish a flute from a violin, even on my car radio. But the point is well-taken. Muted transients, in the name of pleasant listening, erode fidelity, How could they not?

The OP writes: "For whatever reason, the top end on both LP and tape sounds like it is blown wide open compared to digital. It just sounds like it goes on forever."

Is that a 'correct' description? Is it valid for all resolutions of digital, compared to LP or tape?

The OP hears what he hears, but what he is hearing is clearly something other than what he describes. I know he loves his old jazz, as I do, and few of those recordings reach the limits of Redbook CDs, much less 24/192.

Is it valid when compared to a true high-resolution recording/playback chain in digital?

IMO, hi-res is not even necessary in this discussion.

Therefore, what accounts for the open spaces of analog, compared to digital? Is it just that we know the Nyquist-ceiling is there, and therefore are prejudiced, while conveniently forgetting the vintage microphone ceiling?

The expectation that analog will be limitless, based on a misunderstanding of the limits of the recordings? An expectation that digital will be truncated, based on a misunderstanding of the requirements of the recordings (and limits of our perceptions)? A powerful ability to hear what we expect to hear and describe it as we wish we'd heard?

Tim

 

[Soundproof]

Pick-up patterns for the microphones used for professional recordings would vary, according to which settings/configurations were used. The recording engineers knew they were working against the limitations of the cutting lathes and did not give priority to the frequency band above 15kHz, mostly.
A highly praised warhorse such as the U-47, ubiquitous in lauded productions, would retire from the field around 15kHz, both in omnidirectional and cardioid settings, though more sensitive in the cardioid.

Frequency response graphs for the same show nice analogue bumps in the mid-range, and a precipitous roll-off. Session data for both Jazz and Classical recordings show to similar microphone usage.

Here you can see the realistic pick-up patterns for the AKG C12, with its characteristic bump and roll-off, in its two settings. You'll find this to be a general rule for recordings before the late 60s, with many even hanging on to the "analogue warmth" microphones far beyond B&K having delivered ultrasound capable mic's.

Here's a good place to go mic-hunting: http://recordinghacks.com/microphones

The M150, another warhorse, actually rated to 20kHz, but look at its drop-off after the induced "sensitivity bump".

The M147:

Then, of course, there's the issue of the tape media used, and its sensitivity to the higher frequencies.

I suspect its the recording method we are listening to, and enjoying - and not the sensitivity in the higher range.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Soundproof,

Can you list the albums of the Tapeproject that used microphones incapable of registering above 16 kHz?

Jazz experts will correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I have read the Sonny Rollins 'Way out West' of 1957 (my birth year ) used the tube AKG Model C 12 multi-directional condenser microphone introduced in 1953 and having a response of 20-20000Hz .

http://www.coutant.org/akgc12/

Unless indicated otherwise, I see no reason why the majority of the tapes, recorded much later, were recorded using microphones with so poor frequency response, unless purposely wanted by the sound engineers.

The C-12 is the stuff of legend, Micro. Expensive, but I'm sure many of the classic jazz sessions utilized mics capable of reaching to the limits of human hearing. That's just a bit short of the limits of Redbook CD, so we'll still be looking for a reason why analog seems to go on forever.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

I missed this thread when it started, maybe because I thought it was the previous thread with the same subject matter and the same opinions from the thread starter. My question then and now is: why does mep, the OP, think that people who prefer digital don't know what analog sounds like?? I had SOTA or near to it in analog LP playback for many years before starting to switch to digital in about 1989; it's true I wasn't very happy with digital until nearer to 2000.

 

[Soundproof]

The C-12 is the stuff of legend, Micro. Expensive, but I'm sure many of the classic jazz sessions utilized mics capable of reaching to the limits of human hearing. That's just a bit short of the limits of Redbook CD, so we'll still be looking for a reason why analog seems to go on forever.

Tim

In those rare instances when the tape machines were running at preferably 30ips, and had been properly set up, and the right microphones were chosen, and were electrically boosted to be sensitive in the top ... which is why at times it's worth it to go back and see what's on the 3-tracks.

But if we run a frequency analysis on 2-track releases from the time (often copied 1:1), we don't find much "up in the ceiling", they still sound great. And if we do the same with a mono vinyl, surprise is in store. Not unusual for these to have very little above 8kHz. I have an Annie Fischer/Klemperer mono Mint concerto with very little above 7kHz (needledrop on air suspension VPI with car-for-your-stylus needle). A very engaging and much lauded recording.

I think/believe that it is the recording method we are enjoying. The leading companies were using terms such as Living Presence and Living Stereo during the golden age of analog recording, and deservedly so. They pursued optimal musician/room interaction, and recorded that in the simplest way possible.

What's the major difference between the golden age of analog and the recordings that followed from end of 60s onwards? The recording method. We went from "living presence" to "multitrack dampened studio presences with artificially added reverb to the end result".
And what happens when a few companies today venture back to the methods used then - as Linn have done on the Dunedin "Messiah" or 2L does? We love the result, to the extent that 2L gets a sampler as part of the TWBAS, in spite of using digital recording.

I listen to analog. I have tape and vinyl as my primary sources, and my ears are taking me to golden recordings that have been done in as natural a manner as possible. Something that can also be said about the Tape Project releases.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think/believe that it is the recording method we are enjoying.

Agreed.

We went from "living presence" to "multitrack studio presences with artificially added reverb to the end result".

Not to mention the build-up of sonic grunge from layering and bouncing tracks. It got better, though, and so did the use of artificial reverb. And digital recording solved the build-up problems of mutli-track recording. Get around the awful mastering style that is popular today, and digital can make the best multi-track recordings, to my ears. I'd love to hear great mics, great musicians, in a great room, recorded the way the best studio recordings of the golden age of analog were recorded, but to a SOTA digital system. I have a few that approach that sound, but the style of recording has fallen out of style, I'm afraid.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

In those rare instances when the tape machines were running at preferably 30ips, and had been properly set up, and the right microphones were chosen, and were electrically boosted to be sensitive in the top ... which is why at times it's worth it to go back and see what's on the 3-tracks.

But if we run a frequency analysis on 2-track releases from the time (often copied 1:1), we don't find much "up in the ceiling", they still sound great. And if we do the same with a mono vinyl, surprise is in store. Not unusual for these to have very little above 8kHz. I have an Annie Fischer/Klemperer mono Mint concerto with very little above 7kHz (needledrop on air suspension VPI with car-for-your-stylus needle). A very engaging and much lauded recording.

I think/believe that it is the recording method we are enjoying. The leading companies were using terms such as Living Presence and Living Stereo during the golden age of analog recording, and deservedly so. They pursued optimal musician/room interaction, and recorded that in the simplest way possible.

What's the major difference between the golden age of analog and the recordings that followed from end of 60s onwards? The recording method. We went from "living presence" to "multitrack dampened studio presences with artificially added reverb to the end result".
And what happens when a few companies today venture back to the methods used then - as Linn have done on the Dunedin "Messiah" or 2L does? We love the result, to the extent that 2L gets a sampler as part of the TWBAS.

I listen to analog. I have tape and vinyl as my primary sources, and my ears are taking me to golden recordings that have been done in as natural a manner as possible. Something that can also be said about the Tape Project releases.

There's no question that a large part of the magic of these recordings from the Golden Era of Stereo is their simplicity and that the labels chose their recordings venues carefully. They worked in these hall/churches/studios so many times that they really knew how to place the mikes. They sometimes, as in the case of RCA, were not miked as simply as first reported in the pages of some audio magazines.

Now I do think there are some tapes that will qualify as having some upper octave extension. These are from Opus 3 and they made analog recordings up to about 2000 IIRC. I heard a sampler tape at CES and should be also getting a different sampler tape from 8 to 10 of their recordings in the next two weeks.

 

[rbbert]

...I think/believe that it is the recording method we are enjoying. The leading companies were using terms such as Living Presence and Living Stereo during the golden age of analog recording, and deservedly so. They pursued optimal musician/room interaction, and recorded that in the simplest way possible.

No argument about this from me. I love the sound of '50's and '60's jazz and classical recordings, "even" on CD, SACD and 24/96 or 24/192 PCM.

 

[RogerD]

In those rare instances when the tape machines were running at preferably 30ips, and had been properly set up, and the right microphones were chosen, and were electrically boosted to be sensitive in the top ... which is why at times it's worth it to go back and see what's on the 3-tracks.

But if we run a frequency analysis on 2-track releases from the time (often copied 1:1), we don't find much "up in the ceiling", they still sound great. And if we do the same with a mono vinyl, surprise is in store. Not unusual for these to have very little above 8kHz. I have an Annie Fischer/Klemperer mono Mint concerto with very little above 7kHz (needledrop on air suspension VPI with car-for-your-stylus needle). A very engaging and much lauded recording.

I think/believe that it is the recording method we are enjoying. The leading companies were using terms such as Living Presence and Living Stereo during the golden age of analog recording, and deservedly so. They pursued optimal musician/room interaction, and recorded that in the simplest way possible.

What's the major difference between the golden age of analog and the recordings that followed from end of 60s onwards? The recording method. We went from "living presence" to "multitrack dampened studio presences with artificially added reverb to the end result".
And what happens when a few companies today venture back to the methods used then - as Linn have done on the Dunedin "Messiah" or 2L does? We love the result, to the extent that 2L gets a sampler as part of the TWBAS, in spite of using digital recording.

I listen to analog. I have tape and vinyl as my primary sources, and my ears are taking me to golden recordings that have been done in as natural a manner as possible. Something that can also be said about the Tape Project releases.

Simplicity is the natural result of profound thought....Confucius and also a old wise recording engineer.

 

[Soundproof]

One can easily get lost in disputes in HiFi. Just wanted to share that I've just put a pristine 4-track Sutherland 1961 Lucia di Lammermoor on my 1506, and I'm all smiles over what I am hearing. Brilliant recording, and my opera friends will not believe what they will hear from this tape. A wonderful soundstage, and they are there...

In the box was a small envelope from Ampex Stereo Tapes, inviting me to mail in for their catalog of 4000 selections.
I wish.

 

[RogerD]

One can easily get lost in disputes in HiFi. Just wanted to share that I've just put a pristine 4-track Sutherland 1961 Lucia di Lammermoor on my 1506, and I'm all smiles over what I am hearing. Brilliant recording, and my opera friends will not believe what they will hear from this tape. A wonderful soundstage, and they are there...

In the box was a small envelope from Ampex Stereo Tapes, inviting me to mail in for their catalog of 4000 selections.
I wish.

Is that the London LOR 90036? If so ,I'll play that tonight.....Also try the Puccini Tosca Living Stereo Price - Gobbi,just a stunning recording on tape.

thanks

 

[mep]

I missed this thread when it started, maybe because I thought it was the previous thread with the same subject matter and the same opinions from the thread starter. My question then and now is: why does mep, the OP, think that people who prefer digital don't know what analog sounds like?? I had SOTA or near to it in analog LP playback for many years before starting to switch to digital in about 1989; it's true I wasn't very happy with digital until nearer to 2000.

I don’t think that, you assumed I thought that. I think you assumed that because I stated that if you don’t have the capability to playback analog and do it regularly, you are just relying on old memories of what it used to sound like to you. And if I read your post correctly, you gave up your SOTA analog for digital in 1989 even though you didn’t enjoy digital until close to 2000. Is that correct? Or did you continue to listen to analog until well after 1989 and not waste 11 years of your musical life?

If I hadn’t listened to digital music since 1989 and had no idea how RB CD sounds or hi-rez digital sounds now with today’s gear, would you really want me to talk about how digital sounds? I didn’t think so. And it’s a two-way street. If you haven’t listened to analog at home in your system for over 10 years, how relevant is your opinion of analog today?

And let’s get something straight here people. When I start these threads, I’m expressing my opinion which we are all free to do. If I rank source material in accordance with my preference for what sounds more like live music to me, it’s just my preference. I’m not stating it as a fact backed up by scientific evidence. It’s a preference, a choice, an opinion-nothing more or nothing less.

Some people read way more into this than what was intended and get in a snoot over what I say. Your opinion is just as valid as my opinion because they are both just opinions. I tell you what I prefer, you are free to say what you prefer. It’s all cool at the end of the day. If you can’t stand analog and love digital, that’s fine with me. I listen to digital too.

And getting back to my original point for starting this thread, it is my belief that analog provides more upper octave information than most digital-thus my comment about being blown wide open. You can hear it at my house unless you are deaf. Now we have people saying that microphones that were used to record in the 1950s and 1960s had poor upper frequency response and we know that is not true in all cases. We have all sorts of speculations as to what is going on. Somehow we got distracted about analog room noise being pleasant and maybe that is why analog fools love analog. How about that maybe, just maybe, there is more meat on the analog bones than there is on the digital bones? Now you are free to love digital anorexic bones and tell me that that the extra meat on analog bones is nothing more than distortion and that music is really only 5’8” tall and weighs 85 lbs.

As for analog noise, I really detest noise, and as I get older, I like it less. There is not a damn thing about analog noise that I like or find pleasing. I want my noise floor to be as quiet as possible no matter the format. What ranks supreme in regards to noise in my opinion?

1. Digital
2. 15 ips/2 track tape
3. LPs

However, I’m not throwing the analog baby out with the digital bath water to use a worn out cliché. In most cases, when the music starts, the noise (however low level) is gone. The better your LP front end gets and the better it is setup, the lower the noise. The better your phono preamp is, the lower the noise. Will it ever be as silent as digital? No. Does that noise somehow comfort me and make me feel good? Hell no.

Please remember that I’m merely stating my preference and my opinion. I’m not stating anything as an absolute fact that you must understand and agree with. It’s merely what I believe to be true. That doesn’t mean it is ‘the’ truth. Over and out…

 

[Soundproof]

Is that the London LOR 90036? If so ,I'll play that tonight.....Also try the Puccini Tosca Living Stereo Price - Gobbi,just a stunning recording on tape.

thanks

Yes, that's the one. Haven't landed the Tosca yet (on tape), but will keep an eye out for it!

 

[rbbert]

"I highly recommend that those who are strictly wedded to the digital format go and visit someone who has a decent setup and can play back LPs and maybe tape and compare that to digital for you so you can hear for yourself."

There's a quote from your original post. I didn't retire my table/arm/cartridge/pre-amp until 2002, because I found that I had hardly listened to it in the previous 2 years. I still have friends who have analog (I just recently listened to Getz/Gilberto from a well-preserved original pressing on a great Pass Labs system), and there was lots of analog in the same rooms as digital at the last RAMF. I still don't miss it, except for the better masterings often present on LP's, and Bruce B's reel tapes (which I can't listen to at home anyway), all of which has nothing to do with the format.

And I have to say that today's gear is not that much better than yesterday's gear. Continuous incremental improvements, yes; night and day, no way. Remember those recordings from 50 + years ago.

 

[fas42]

The conversation has gone down the one of usual roads of thrashing around about microphones, frequency response, mastering techniques. And how everything is adding something, normally the "wrong" thing to the recording. Virtually nothing about the approach of taking the wrong thing from the playback. Distortion, of course. IMO (okay, Tim, sit down, sit down!!).

The journey with the friend, in hindsight, has been very instructive. Having both LP and CD, and he being prepared to get his hands totally dirty in the guts of these playback devices certainly meant excellent feedback as to relevance of various elements in the quality of playback. The TT, a cheap Projekt, has had its bearing worn out through the various experiments, so he's engineered a new one there, the drive belt and pully arrangement is completely altered, the mounting and suspension of the motor, on and on. Each step has been a movement forward, and the end result has been -- drum roll please!! -- that the CD doesn't sound like CD, and the LP doesn't sound like LP; they each just sound like a mechanism playing back a recording. My feedback to him has been, for example, that his LP version of some CD album I have doesn't sound right, and the end result has been a convergence of the sound characteristics of the two media.

And what is that convergence? It is the sound of the recording, the quality of what it sounded like at the time of mastering the album. The media that the particular recording is on is now pretty irrelevant, this noise floor thing is nowhere in sight.

And as a final note: I was thinking back to some very, very expensive TT setups I listened to while part of that audio club scene and shudder. When they were good, they were very, very good; but when they were bad, ...

Frank