Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In web.com,
wrote:


Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.


Total? In all cases?

Yes - by the inclusion of "correctly" in the statement. cf below. :-)

Assuming, of course the method used can capture every nuance of the
original sound.

Are you meaning every *audible* "nuance", and are you just using "nuance"
as your own "musicality" buzzword to cover what you can't define?

Which as we all know, it can't.

Really? How have you established everything I know? Or are you just
telling the rest of us what we are allowed - by you - to think? :-)

The reality, though, is that various tests have been done over the years
which allow listeners to compare a direct link with one that goes though a
'digital' insert. And that when done "correctly" they can't tell the
difference. This doesn't require us to define terms like "nuance" or
"musicality". Just set up and use a 'digital' system that works "correctly'
by the practical definition of providing that level of performance when
people listen. Thus the evidence can cut though the verbiage.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

In article , Rob wrote:
All the vinyl enthusiasts I know are happy with a well made CD copy of
vinyl. But are in denial that vinyl adds distortions to the original
master that CD doesn't, and prefer to think of it as magic. Which is why
they don't like a well made CD of the original master - if such a thing
exists. It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds.


You've been here before :-)

You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you
find the phrase to be. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

If something changes the waveform of an audio signal, then what word would
you use for it other than "distortion", and who do you think should bear the
cost of reprinting all those textbooks?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
On 07/11/2011 21:08, David Looser wrote:
wrote

You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you
find
the phrase to be. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

It obviously bothers you when we call a spade a spade, or in this case
call
distortion distortion. Sorry, thats what it is, there's no other word for
it.


Well, you do need the context. We were talking about accounting for the
difference in sound. 'Distortion' isn't the only, or possibly significant,
variable.


OK then, you tell me what other factors there are which can account for the
difference in sound. (other than differences in mastering that is).

David.

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

In article om,
Rob wrote:
On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In web.com,
wrote:
It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds.


You've been here before :-)

You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you
find the phrase to be.

Not technically expedient, technically correct.


Following that line doesn't get you any closer to understanding what
you're trying to explain - the difference in experience, including
preference.

Sorry, but I understand it perfectly. You are the one with the problem.

It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

Not so. Analalogue can go through many stages of amplifiers etc without
audible degradion. But cannon survive being cut to vinyl unharmed.


Er, OK.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.


Total? In all cases? Assuming, of course the method used can capture
every nuance of the original sound. Which as we all know, it can't.

Nor can any analogue system, if you want to be picky. And far more to the
point, you can't record it. There is no analogue recording system that
even comes close to matching what can be achieved by other parts of an
analogue chain.

Why else do you think even the most fastidious of LP makers were so keen
to go digital for the master recording? Before the whole retro sound
thing became an issue with those who think what they hear and like at home
is the best way of doing things. Without finding out why.

I've dealt with audio all my working life. And have seen some amazing
progress in what the nuts and bolts are capable of. But those nuts and
bolts - no matter how improved - do not guarantee the whole process will
produce an excellent result. That is still down to the people involved in
making the recording you listen to.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

On 08/11/2011 09:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
In web.com, Rob wrote:
All the vinyl enthusiasts I know are happy with a well made CD copy of
vinyl. But are in denial that vinyl adds distortions to the original
master that CD doesn't, and prefer to think of it as magic. Which is why
they don't like a well made CD of the original master - if such a thing
exists. It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds.


You've been here before :-)

You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you
find the phrase to be. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

If something changes the waveform of an audio signal, then what word would
you use for it other than "distortion", and who do you think should bear the
cost of reprinting all those textbooks?

Rod.

No, I think the text books can stand unedited. They're fine in their
context. Rest easy :-)

However, we're discussing the experience of listening to music. One way
to explain what that experience is might be the influence of distortion.
Other ways might be harmonics, or the possible a variable that science
has yet to consider/uncover.

There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of a
musical event. And the explanation as 'distortion' is not helpful, IMO.

Rob

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

On 08/11/2011 10:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:
On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In web.com,
wrote:
It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds.


You've been here before :-)

You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you
find the phrase to be.

Not technically expedient, technically correct.


Following that line doesn't get you any closer to understanding what
you're trying to explain - the difference in experience, including
preference.

Sorry, but I understand it perfectly. You are the one with the problem.


I have many problems, 'tis true. Could you just explain: why is it that
some people prefer the sound of analogue recordings?

I'd guess your answer is: distortion. I'm afraid I still need to know -
how does that get anyone closer to thinking that the analogue sound is,
often, a better rendition of the original performance? How does
'distortion' do that?

It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

Not so. Analalogue can go through many stages of amplifiers etc without
audible degradion. But cannon survive being cut to vinyl unharmed.


Er, OK.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.


Total? In all cases? Assuming, of course the method used can capture
every nuance of the original sound. Which as we all know, it can't.

Nor can any analogue system, if you want to be picky. And far more to the
point, you can't record it. There is no analogue recording system that
even comes close to matching what can be achieved by other parts of an
analogue chain.


I'm not sure why you chose an absolute, just to instantly retract. No
matter.

I'm afraid I find your following explanation all jumbled up. Can't
record what? Analogue systems are perfectly capable of an excellent
rendition of the original sound.

Why else do you think even the most fastidious of LP makers were so keen
to go digital for the master recording? Before the whole retro sound
thing became an issue with those who think what they hear and like at home
is the best way of doing things. Without finding out why.


I'd suggest the 'digital LP' was a marketing phase, rather than a
technical breakthrough.

I've dealt with audio all my working life. And have seen some amazing
progress in what the nuts and bolts are capable of. But those nuts and
bolts - no matter how improved - do not guarantee the whole process will
produce an excellent result. That is still down to the people involved in
making the recording you listen to.


Of course, agreed.

Rob

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

"Rob" wrote

However, we're discussing the experience of listening to music. One way to
explain what that experience is might be the influence of distortion.
Other ways might be harmonics, or the possible a variable that science has
yet to consider/uncover.

The term "distortion" covers all of those. In particular the sort of
distortion most commonly understood by the word is all about harmonics.

There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of a
musical event. And the explanation as 'distortion' is not helpful, IMO.


Well lets look at this logically shall we?

If there is a difference between analogue and digital reproduction (a sonic
difference that is, not a liking for the physical object of the LP, or the
experience of handling and playing it) then it can only be because of the
different distortions generated by the two methods of recording. We know
from experience that a properly made digital copy is subjectively
indistinguishable from the original, so the distortions created by the
digital recording process can be discounted. Which leaves the distortions
created by the analogue recording process as the only remaining factor. What
else can there possibly be?

David.

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

In article om,
Rob wrote:
However, we're discussing the experience of listening to music. One way
to explain what that experience is might be the influence of distortion.
Other ways might be harmonics, or the possible a variable that science
has yet to consider/uncover.

Generally, it's the harmonics which distortion alters.

There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of a
musical event. And the explanation as 'distortion' is not helpful, IMO.

Some people believe in little green men. A belief is just that.

You have every right to say you *prefer* the distorted sound of vinyl. The
snag arrises when you or anyone else attempts to prove it does in fact
capture something of the original performance that good digital doesn't.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

On 08/11/2011 11:01, David Looser wrote:
We know
from experience that a properly made digital copy is subjectively
indistinguishable from the original

Utter drivel!

--

Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
 

In article om,
Rob wrote:
On 08/11/2011 10:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:
On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In web.com,
wrote:
It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds.


You've been here before :-)

You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you
find the phrase to be.

Not technically expedient, technically correct.


Following that line doesn't get you any closer to understanding what
you're trying to explain - the difference in experience, including
preference.

Sorry, but I understand it perfectly. You are the one with the problem.


I have many problems, 'tis true. Could you just explain: why is it that
some people prefer the sound of analogue recordings?

I know people who prefer the sound of a tranny portable on AM for radio
than a decent Hi-Fi off FM. It's their choice.

I'd guess your answer is: distortion. I'm afraid I still need to know -
how does that get anyone closer to thinking that the analogue sound is,
often, a better rendition of the original performance? How does
'distortion' do that?

It's not a better rendition of the original performance. Just one you
personally prefer. The chances of you ever being at a performance where
the mics capture exactly what you heard is remote, anyway. And once you go
to something made in a studio, all bets are off.

It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you
like.

Not so. Analalogue can go through many stages of amplifiers etc without
audible degradion. But cannon survive being cut to vinyl unharmed.


Er, OK.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.


Total? In all cases? Assuming, of course the method used can capture
every nuance of the original sound. Which as we all know, it can't.

Nor can any analogue system, if you want to be picky. And far more to the
point, you can't record it. There is no analogue recording system that
even comes close to matching what can be achieved by other parts of an
analogue chain.


I'm not sure why you chose an absolute, just to instantly retract. No
matter.

I'm afraid I find your following explanation all jumbled up. Can't
record what? Analogue systems are perfectly capable of an excellent
rendition of the original sound.

I can give you plenty examples of musical instruments that are near
impossible to record well on any analogue recorder. A personal favourite
is a bell tree.

Why else do you think even the most fastidious of LP makers were so
keen to go digital for the master recording? Before the whole retro
sound thing became an issue with those who think what they hear and
like at home is the best way of doing things. Without finding out why.


I'd suggest the 'digital LP' was a marketing phase, rather than a
technical breakthrough.

Maybe. But before it arrived direct cut was the best possible vinyl,
quality wise. When digital arrived, that all but disappeared.

I've dealt with audio all my working life. And have seen some amazing
progress in what the nuts and bolts are capable of. But those nuts and
bolts - no matter how improved - do not guarantee the whole process
will produce an excellent result. That is still down to the people
involved in making the recording you listen to.


Of course, agreed.

Rob

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.