Quiet gear vs. dark backgrounds, and the "space between the notes"

[RUR]

You are definitely right. It is unclear if we all like very flat response instead of boost in certain low frequencies which the room brings. In addition, whoever mixed the music also mixed it in a room and hence, had some amount of room gain. Take that away and we likely hear a mix with less bass in it than it would be there normally.

When Harman performed their "Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products", listeners preferred a downward sloping response at the LP:

The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a smooth downward slope with increasing frequency. This tells us that listeners prefer a certain amount of natural room gain. Removing the room gain, makes the reproduced music sound unnatural, and too thin, according to these listeners. This also makes perfect sense since the recording was likely mixed in room where the room gain was also not removed; therefore, to remove it from the consumers' listening room would destroy spectral balance of the music as intended by the artist.

(same link)

Preferred curve, from the testing, is the top-most shown on slide 24 here, in the associated PP presentation.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

what was the tt? cartridge? specific Lps? source of the 15ips tapes? specific RTR deck?

i have no problem with Tim and respect that he wrote what he believes; but when he represents what vinyl is or is not capable of doing, and then we proceed to use that perspective as the basis to make points, i feel compelled to challenge it. i would not have written this post if Tim's opinion was not used as 'evidence' by Frank.

Mike, I don't think Frank used my opinion as evidence, he just agreed that cd doesn't have any trouble reproducing the mechanical noises of vinyl. Is that even controversial?

I've already answered most of your questions to the best of my ability. The TT was a vintage Technics. I haven't a clue what the cartridge was. The Deck was a Studer. I don't know the model number. The 15 ips tapes were recordings of my own work. Most were recorded in the same studio I was in when we digitized them. A couple were demos recorded at home on my own Teac 4-track R2R. The albums were things from my collection that I couldn't find digital copies of at the time -- Mason Proffit, Illinois Speed Press, Strawbs, some early and obscure American responses to the British Invasion. Nothing audiophile. Nothing special. But in that experience, in my opinion, and the opinion of the very ear-trained studio pro and friend who was helping me with the project, the resulting CDs sounded just like the vinyl and tapes. Does it prove that digital can capture and reproduce anything any vinyl rig could produce? Of course not.

Tim

 

[fas42]

2 different hirez recording chains could not replicate properly the signal from my Rockport tt

So if that TT played a "silent", zero volume signal, track and that was replayed at relatively high volume, and compared to the hirez recording chains capturing that signal and replaying it at the same level, there would be, or would have been, a very marked, even dramatic difference between the two ...??

Frank

 

[fas42]

But in that experience, in my opinion, and the opinion of the very ear-trained studio pro and friend who was helping me with the project, the resulting CDs sounded just like the vinyl and tapes. Does it prove that digital can capture and reproduce anything any vinyl rig could produce? Of course not.

Interesting combination of statements, Tim. What experiment, procedure or process would have to be gone through to "prove" that conjecture, to your satisfaction?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Interesting combination of statements, Tim. What experiment, procedure or process would have to be gone through to "prove" that conjecture, to your satisfaction?

Frank

Digitize the vinyl. Burn it to cd. Measure the vinyl/tapes and the digital copies of them and compare. That'd be enough for me.

Tim

 

[mep]

I asked the same questions first that Mike asked second, but we both asked them for the same reason. We wanted to know what level of gear was used to play back LPs and what level of R2R was used to record/play back tapes. It gives you a reference point. And the question I think that was on both of our minds was how good was the gear that was used? Due to the passage of time, Tim is fuzzy on the details of the gear that was used other than it was some type of Technics table and some type of Studer deck. Cheap gear will reproduce and record noise with no problem. What becomes more difficult is to capture the information on the recording (either LP or tape) and play it back with great fidelity when you are recording it. Saying the digital recording captured all the noise is trivial. What is not trival is how much of the information did you capture from the LPs and tape before it was sent to the digital recorder?

Those of us who have invested in better turntables over the years have been rewarded with lower noise floors and more musical information. MikeL is on a different plane than the majority of us in this regard. My VPI TNT has the lowest noise floor of any turntable I have ever owned. MikeL used to own a TNT, but that was many years ago and he has moved on to a different league than where I stand. But I understand what Mike is driving at with the questions he asked.

 

[fas42]

Digitize the vinyl. Burn it to cd. Measure the vinyl/tapes and the digital copies of them and compare. That'd be enough for me.

Fair enough, and sounds like an easy enough thing to do. Surely someone has already done this and published results, or am I wrong ...?

Frank

 

[fas42]

Those of us who have invested in better turntables over the years have been rewarded with lower noise floors and more musical information.

I think the key thing here is whether that noise floor is actually lower in terms of measured performance, and I mean real level versus FR graphs. I fully accept that the audible experience is that the noise floor has lowered, but my belief is that this is psychoacoustic, that is, the better performance of the TT setup overall leads to a subjective evaluation that the noise level is lower.

With all this, I am afraid, the mind is totally intertwined in the loop, of quality evaluation, which is what makes the whole thing so hard ...

Frank

 

[mep]

I fully accept that the audible experience is that the noise floor has lowered, but my belief is that this is psychoacoustic, that is, the better performance of the TT setup overall leads to a subjective evaluation that the noise level is lower.

Frank

And just how would that work Frank? The better performance of the turntable does lead to a lower noise floor. The two are intertwined.

 

[fas42]

And just how would that work Frank? The better performance of the turntable does lead to a lower noise floor.

I'm talking of testing this via measuring gear. Take your best, possibly audiophile, recording of silence, or alternately, of a very, very long space between notes and run that signal through a high quality analyser, firstly with a lower quality TT setup, and secondly with the best gear you've got. Do graphs of signal level vesus frequency, are there differences?

At a second level of testing, record, using the best A/D converter you've got, those two signals and have a look at them on something like Audacity or better ...

Frank

 

[mep]

Frank-you don't need a piece of measuring gear to hear what a difference a better turntable/arm/cartridge makes over a cheap turntable/arm/cartridge combo. Cheaper tables have cheaper and noiser bearings and motors. The platters aren't made with the same precision. The cheaper arms tend to be more resonant. Cheaper cartridges tend to exaggerate groove noise. It's easy to hear my friend.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I asked the same questions first that Mike asked second, but we both asked them for the same reason. We wanted to know what level of gear was used to play back LPs and what level of R2R was used to record/play back tapes. It gives you a reference point. And the question I think that was on both of our minds was how good was the gear that was used? Due to the passage of time, Tim is fuzzy on the details of the gear that was used other than it was some type of Technics table and some type of Studer deck. Cheap gear will reproduce and record noise with no problem. What becomes more difficult is to capture the information on the recording (either LP or tape) and play it back with great fidelity when you are recording it. Saying the digital recording captured all the noise is trivial. What is not trival is how much of the information did you capture from the LPs and tape before it was sent to the digital recorder?

Those of us who have invested in better turntables over the years have been rewarded with lower noise floors and more musical information. MikeL is on a different plane than the majority of us in this regard. My VPI TNT has the lowest noise floor of any turntable I have ever owned. MikeL used to own a TNT, but that was many years ago and he has moved on to a different league than where I stand. But I understand what Mike is driving at with the questions he asked.

I knew why you were asking, Mark. I doubt that the Technics was anything special; that was not the focus of the studio. The Studer is another issue. Tape was the place's bread and butter, and Jay (owner/engineer) was very picky about his gear. That Studer was his mastering deck; his pride and joy. None of it is meant to convince anyone of anything, though. We digitized some tape and vinyl. We burned it to CD. We did it for archiving purposes, but for kicks and giggles we compared the two when we were finished and were left with the impression that the process had been completely transparent. It was quite a few years ago. It was one of the experiences that convinced me to go all the way with digital, that it's time had definitely come, but it proved nothing to anyone but myself.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Mark, I'm deliberately focusing on the measurement side of things because that's where Mike might have an issue with Tim, saying that his noise floor was higher when he did his tests. Tim would immediately reply, prove it, hence to get that element out of the way it would be worthwhile actually getting numerical readings on the matter.

My own suspicion at the moment is that the numerical results wouldn't be that different, not enough to say one thing or another. If that were the case, where would it leave us? My belief then, is that the better system is able to extract the low level detail out the groove in a cleaner fashion, with less distortion if you will, meaning that the ear/brain finds it easier to distinguish the music from the vinyl's intrinsic noise ...

Cheers,
Frank

 

[mep]

I knew why you were asking, Mark. I doubt that the Technics was anything special; that was not the focus of the studio. The Studer is another issue. Tape was the place's bread and butter, and Jay (owner/engineer) was very picky about his gear. That Studer was his mastering deck; his pride and joy. None of it is meant to convince anyone of anything, though. We digitized some tape and vinyl. We burned it to CD. We did it for archiving purposes, but for kicks and giggles we compared the two when we were finished and were left with the impression that the process had been completely transparent. It was quite a few years ago. It was one of the experiences that convinced me to go all the way with digital, that it's time had definitely come, but it proved nothing to anyone but myself.

Tim

Tim-I know that you knew why I asked the questions. I’m sure that you also knew that you were going to be asked after you finished your post. We both know each other well enough by now and I think there is a mutual respect between us.

I have no doubt that your friend who owned the recording studio had a good Studer deck, especially if it was his bread and butter and pride and joy. At a minimum, it was probably a Studer A-80. However, if the source for the 15 ips tapes you had came from his modest technics table, it would have limited what the mighty Studer was capable of.
I for one don’t doubt what Mike is trying to tell us and what other recording engineers have experienced at MikeL’s place.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-I know that you knew why I asked the questions. I’m sure that you also knew that you were going to be asked after you finished your post. We both know each other well enough by now and I think there is a mutual respect between us.

I have no doubt that your friend who owned the recording studio had a good Studer deck, especially if it was his bread and butter and pride and joy. At a minimum, it was probably a Studer A-80. However, if the source for the 15 ips tapes you had came from his modest technics table, it would have limited what the mighty Studer was capable of.
I for one don’t doubt what Mike is trying to tell us and what other recording engineers have experienced at MikeL’s place.

You're misunderstanding, Mark. The Studer wasn't involved in the reproduction of the vinyl. He recorded the vinyl direct to digital, and he recorded my 15 ips tapes direct to digital. We never recorded the vinyl to the Studer. There is no doubt that the Technics was not state of the art, even then. And a couple of the 15 ips tapes were made on my own Teac 3340. A good deck for what it was, but that wasn't state of the art either. The part that was interesting was the tapes that were originally recorded in his studio and mastered on that very Studer, played back on that Studer, digitized from that Studer, then burned to CD. A pretty direct and high quality signal chain, that.

Ever spend any time in studios? I've logged hundreds of hours, not doing anything terribly glamorous, but producing commercial audio -- jingles, radio spots, commercial TV soundtracks. It was always my favorite thing to do, my favorite place to be in my career. Most folks thought overseeing the production of TV commercials must be cool. I found it pretty tedious. Sitting around watching other people work. But I could spend hours in an audio studio mixing a 60 second radio spot. And here's my analog confession -- it has become incredibly precise and efficient in the digital age, but it's not a fraction of the fun. I used to watch my friend Jay hand roll tape back over a tick in a voice over, mark it on both sides, then cut it precisely out with a razor, not removing so much as a fraction of a consonant of the word next to it. I miss that....

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-I have not spent very much time at all in recording studios. I'm not a musician nor do I lay any claims to being an audio engineer. I spent a little time many years ago in a recording studio in downtown Portsmouth, NH. This was before the digital age and it was a 16 track studio (Tascam if I remember correctly). The owner would give me LPs to listen to that were made from tapes they had recorded. My favorite band they recorded was the Helicopters. Ironically, he also had a cheap technics table they used in the studio and I went through his set-up to make sure it was as right as I knew how to make it oh so many years ago.

Now, let's get back to the 15 ips tapes that were recorded in the studio on your friend's Studer. Were these solo recordings of you playing bass, lead, or rhythm guitar or was it a recording of you in a band? Do you remember what speakers your friend had in his studio for monitors that you guys listened to the tape and the digital recording of the tape through? Please tell me they weren't the little Yammies that you see in every recording studio. What amp was driving the speakers? Crown DC 300 maybe?

Mark

 

[metronimo]

Another thing. You're not going to "hear" the silence between the notes if your room isn't quiet! The noise floor in your room will also help you determine how quiet the recording is as well.

A month ago I was listening to some percussion work by John Cage when I realized how much silence was important; there's passages with several minutes of silence, very faint sounds, and also very loud passages. My usual gear was too noisy, so I ripped the cd and used a netbook PC with no moving parts and a good usb sound module. It was a huge improvement. Listening to other cds with this setup I can now hear all the reverberation and other details of the sonic textures.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So if that TT played a "silent", zero volume signal, track and that was replayed at relatively high volume, and compared to the hirez recording chains capturing that signal and replaying it at the same level, there would be, or would have been, a very marked, even dramatic difference between the two ...??

Frank

the recording is of a Steinway piano......likely the most difficult thing for any reproduction chain to get right. there is nowhere to hide when trying to recreate (as best it can) the whole picture of a concert grande piano.

the hirez digital recording chains did a nice job of it; you can hear it on the K2HD CD. however; when we went back and forth (dozens or times over a 12 hour period) the digital was missing much of the nuance easily heard on the Lp. it did not get the overtones, the power of the low notes, the precision and focus, the vividness and sparkle of the high notes......like the Lp direct.

we never even considered any 'silent' sort of test. it was not on the agenda for the session.

allow me to relate a story which futher explains my point. about a year ago i had a local couple visit me. they were considering buying a Playback Designs MPS-5 digital player, had heard i had one, contacted me and i invited them for a listen. they were much into music and had a particular CD of a friend of theirs playing Liszt's Mephisto Waltz. they also had other piano CD's. so i played these for them and they loved how it sounded on the MPS-5 thru my system. they were nice, well done recordings. i asked them if they had any interest in hearing how piano sounded on vinyl. they said sure. so i played the Mephisto Waltz for them from the RR pressing 'Nojima Plays Listz'. they were completely blown away. we played their CD again. then the Lp again. i also played them the RR CD of Nojima Plays Listz for comparison.

their heads were pretty screwed up.

they decieded to forget the MPS-5 and bought a tt instead.

this is not rocket science. listen to what a very good tt can do with something like a piano compared to any PCM digital. you don't need to worry about how either format handles silence. the musical differences overwhelm your senses.

a less capable tt set-up can level the playing field somewhat; which is why i pick on Tim's nebulous vinyl references when he throws them out from time to time. why even bring up what some entry level Technics tt might have done many years ago? it would be like using a mid-80's CDP as your digital reference. they are not credible data points to hang one's hat on when commenting on how formats differ.

 

[mep]

Mike-The ironic thing about your post wherein you describe how vinyl captures the sound of piano is the very comparison that is usually made to describe an area that CD outdoes vinyl. CD has always touted its ability to get the piano sound 'right'due to its superior pitch stability. The ability to accurately capture the sound of a piano was supposedly a weakness of LP playback. Another audio myth busted as Ethan loves to say?

 

[metronimo]

How would you explain that the vinyl chain works better than the CD chain, for your specific exemple (Nojima Plays Listz)? Was it a blinded test? What was overwhelming: the sonic experience or the esthetics of the hardware and the medium? Or both? How can you be so sure that a very good TT with something like piano is better than any PCM digital reproduction chain? Do you believe that an all analog reproduction chain is the key factor? Did you considered that this recording was just very well done, that the digital transfer was maybe not well done, or that your system was just better tuned for your turntable?