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

In article ,
artiage wrote:
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!

Have you ever had the opportunity to compare the various recording methods
in a studio or whatever where everything is under your control? I suspect
you haven't. I have.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

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

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

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In web.com,


Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.

Read carefully. The above is a truism. If the digitizing is not correct,
then it may not be totally transparent.

Total? In all cases?

The OP was not an "all cases"statement. It applies to only those cases where
the digitizing is done correctly.

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

If we are comparing analog to digital, all the digital method needs to do is
be no worse than the best possible relevant analog operation.

Digital first intruded on audio because of the superiority of digital
storage, duplication, and distribution over the comparable analog
operations.

Since storage, duplication, and distribution are inherent in the use of
music media, digital became the best viable option.

Which as we all know, it can't.

*Every* nuance? Not even analog can do that.

Right now digital conversion can be more accurate than your typical regular
piece of audio gear. When new, more highly accurate converters are
developed, there are generally new, more accurate amplifier circuits that
are developed at the same time so that the new converters can be exploited.
IOW, the previous generation of amplifier circuits were too inaccurate for
use with the new converters.

DBTs have shown that for more than 25 years, the best converters were not
detectable by human ears when working with the best available recordings.
Since then progress has taken the form of converters that are more flexible
and far less costly. At this time sonically transparent converters are
pretty much commodity items. Even inexpensive audio gear uses them. In
contrast equally good converters ran the better part of a million dollars in
the early 1970s.

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

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...

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

While this is not the only answer, it is an answer that is a good start for
improving insight.

Some people prefer the sound of analogue recordings for reasons of
sentimentality and custom.

It has nothing or very little to do with higher sound quality.

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

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 08/11/2011 09:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
In web.com, Rob


However, we're discussing the experience of listening to music.

Not quite, I think. You are 'discussing' the effects LP/CD may or may not
have upon that experience.

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

Perhaps that tells us something about you rather than the "explanation"?

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 , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article om,

If so, then you have to agree that pleasing your ears is an important
part of listening to Hi-Fi / music. That being the case, why is it not
valid to say that, for what ever reason, I enjoy the sound of LP rather
more than anything digital?

I fail to understand why the scientists here cannot just accept this
without having to go down the tired old route of - its distortion - it
cannot be better - digital is perfect - eventually calling people idiots
or whatever.

It may help if you went back to the distinction I made earlier between

1) 'Commercial' LP/CD which are often either deliberately made with audible
difference, or ones caused by lack of care by the makers, etc.

2) Situations where an LP can be transferred to a digital copy and then
sound indistingushable from the LP

That in turn would let you phrase arguments that distinguish container from
contained, and potential ability of a method/system from the ways they were
used in specific cases. May also let you distinguish 'preferrable' for you
as one individual and 'better' in more general and objective ways that
apply to people in general.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.

'Correctly' yes I'm sure but do we do it correctly? I've not witnessed
perfect conversion.

Define your terms and I may be able to help. I've certainly made transfers
to CD that sounded indistinguishable from the LP. Since the LP isn't
"perfect" the transfer only needs to be what you might call using your
undefined terms "perfect enough". So it becomes pointless to talk about
'perfect' in some absolute or undefined sense when our ears, and every
other part of a chain aren't 'perfect' - in a way that may be totally
irrelevant when it comes to audibility of a difference.

If you don't take the care to define your terms and distinguish these
differences, then you end up going down the same route as we've seen many
times before. Arguing using the same words with ambiguous or different
meanings. Helps no-one.

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 ,
Bob Latham wrote:
If so, then you have to agree that pleasing your ears is an important
part of listening to Hi-Fi / music. That being the case, why is it not
valid to say that, for what ever reason, I enjoy the sound of LP rather
more than anything digital?

Nothing wrong with that. personal preferences are just that.

I fail to understand why the scientists here cannot just accept this
without having to go down the tired old route of - its distortion - it
cannot be better - digital is perfect - eventually calling people idiots
or whatever.

But they do. It's the likes of you who try to justify their preference.
Usually with invented 'science'.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.

'Correctly' yes I'm sure but do we do it correctly? I've not witnessed
perfect conversion.

All that says is you've not witnessed perfect conversion. And therefore
believe it doesn't exist?

I have an Arcam AV8 which can pass analogue audio through without
digitising it. It can also do the opposite and A to D then D to A. The
difference is very obvious, you couldn't miss it believe me. I'll go
futher, You would not select the converted option a second time without a
secondary reason.

OK so my AV8 is rubbish no doubt.

No doubt at all. Or simply broken. But it could well be they've
deliberately designed their equipment to prove to those who buy such
things *exactly* what they want to believe.

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

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

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

"Bob Latham" wrote

However, if you go to buy a pair of loudspeakers I would imagine most
people would look at cost, size, colour and perhaps frequency response and
maybe efficiency. This would give a short list of contenders. I would be
surprised if anyone here purchased on that data alone. I certainly would
want a home demo and a good listen to the chief protagonists, wouldn't you
all?

Loudspeakers are a whole different can of worms. There is no such thing as a
"perfect" loudspeaker, or even close. Furthermore loudspeaker performance is
significantly affected by the accoustic environment in which they are used.
None of this has any bearing on recording (electrical in, electrical out)
which can now be as close to being "perfect" as makes very little
difference.

If so, then you have to agree that pleasing your ears is an important part
of listening to Hi-Fi / music. That being the case, why is it not valid to
say that, for what ever reason, I enjoy the sound of LP rather more than
anything digital?

If you prefer LP sound to anything digital thats your choice, just as many
people still prefer steam railway engines to anything electric.

I fail to understand why the scientists here

I'm an engineer, not a scientist.

cannot just accept this
without having to go down the tired old route of - its distortion - it
cannot be better - digital is perfect - eventually calling people idiots
or whatever.

I'm not calling anyone an "idiot". But good modern digital is as near
perfect as makes very little difference, this can be demonstrated
subjectively as well as by measurement.

Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent.

'Correctly' yes I'm sure but do we do it correctly? I've not witnessed
perfect conversion.

No?

I have an Arcam AV8 which can pass analogue audio through without
digitising it. It can also do the opposite and A to D then D to A. The
difference is very obvious, you couldn't miss it believe me. I'll go
futher, You would not select the converted option a second time without a
secondary reason.

OK so my AV8 is rubbish no doubt.

Well I cannot possibly comment on your Arcam having no experience of it. But
if there is an real obvious difference (you are conducting these comparisons
blind I trust?) then there is something wrong. Possibly the direct and
via-digital levels are not matched?

David.

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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:58:10 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article om, Rob
wrote:

On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) 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.

Note how the CD quality recordings I made, which according to you are
missing 'something', can nevertheless distinguish between those
recordings made on the intermediate quality Project deck and those
made on the higher quality (even after being disembowelled and
reassembled) Dual deck.

Which as we all know, it can't.

If the process is done correctly, it will capture everything that
anybody's ears can hear, and for most people probably a bit beyond,
which is everthing that matters as far as the human listening
experience is concerned.

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.

Exactly. As in ...

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:59:57 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

It shouldn't be
necessary to say it, but such druids may care to note that when played
back through the same equipment, there is no audible difference
between the originals and the digital recordings.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

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

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Loudspeakers are a whole different can of worms. There is no such thing
as a "perfect" loudspeaker, or even close. Furthermore loudspeaker
performance is significantly affected by the accoustic environment in
which they are used. None of this has any bearing on recording
(electrical in, electrical out) which can now be as close to being
"perfect" as makes very little difference.

The same applies to microphones.

Some listen to a recording and say 'that sounds closer to how I remember
it' from some live performance. But the chances of their ears being
anywhere near that microphone or microphones during that live performance
is remote. Therefore acoustics etc come into play there too.

Before you can do any subjective comparisons, you would need to hear a
single live instrument in a room and record it with a mic close to your
ear - then reproduce with a loudspeaker in the same room. The room would
have to have near zero acoustic to save doubling this up.

Great fun. ;-)

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

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

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

Because I plonk gmail.com as a SPAM source, I'm having to correct
Rob's mistakes by replying to others' posts. Apologies to them if
they are in any way annoyed by this. Rob and others may care to note
that, as I am by no means the only person who does this, they might do
well to post by a different account.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:12:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article om,
Rob wrote:

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

First, you should note that AFAIAA it's virtually impossible these
days to buy a truly analogue recording. All commercial vinyls
produced by the big labels will have been recorded initially using
digital recording systems. The only analogue part of the process will
have been the actual vinyl production. Nowadays, virtually the only
way to obtain a truly analogue recording is to buy up second-hand
tapes and vinyls which were produced earlier than around the 1980s.

So we have to ask where this myth, because that is exactly what it is,
that 'analogue' is better than 'digital' (quoted now because we are
dealing with a myth, not facts) come from? I've already explained
some of the possible reasons on a page on my website. From the tone
of your posts, I think you would do well to read it carefully, as it
contains many FACTS pertinent to this discussion:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...VinylVsCD.html

There are potentially many reasons why some may people prefer what
they perceive as 'analogue' to what they perceive as 'digital' , some
or all of which may apply to differing degrees in any one case:

1) For people my sort of age, they've been listening only to analogue
- vinyl, open reel, or audio cassette - most of their lives,
because there was nothing else. So this is simply what we were used
to, and anything that sounds different in some way, even if that
difference is actually an improvement, is regarded at least initially
with suspicion. Some people never get past that initial suspicion,
because for some of many possible reasons - for example arrogance,
laziness, or simply not understanding how long it may take (it took me
at least A YEAR to be able to drink without active dislike tea and
coffee without sugar, it was about another year before actual
enjoyment returned) - they are not prepared to invest the time and
effort in adjusting to anything that's new.

2) As explained on the above linked page, and much more fully by
others, including Jim Lesurf's website linked from there, many modern
recordings, 'analogue' and 'digital', are processed before release,
usually to give the sound greater 'impact'. The result is nearly
always an unbalanced sound that tires the listener sooner than a
balanced sound. To the short-term thinking of the companies, it's no
matter that customers put their recordings aside sooner, the important
thing is that they bought theirs' as opposed to others'.

As such abuse of good standards is perceived to be contemporaneous
with the digital era, and is also much easier if digital techniques
are available, it's natural for the simple-minded or those to lazy to
inquire further to assume that 'digital' is somehow to blame and
therefore that 'digital' = bad and 'analogue' = good.

3) Some people are just plain gullible, and will believe without
critical enquiry anything they are told, especially if it comes from
someone perceived to be an authoritative 'guru', and especially if it
is served up with an impressive garnishing of pseudo-science.

4) Many 'guru's rely on going against prevailing opinion to get
themselves noticed. Initially, it seems to be a way of marking out
one's independence of thought, but of course it actually does nothing
of the sort, because you're no less dependent on everyone else if
you're inclined always to go in the opposite direction to everyone
else, as you would be if you always followed everyone else.

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.

:-0

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?

Distortion is simply what the word implies - it's anything that
changes the sound, whether adding something to it, or subtracting
something from it. The usual measure of distortion is Total Harmonic
Distortion (THD).

Most amplifiers (which, note, are analogue, regardless of whether the
sound source is analogue or digital), certainly any that could be
considered 'hi fi' (though I was surprised to find that there was
never any actual definition of that term in terms of requisite
specifications) can be expected to have very low figures for THD,
less than a hundredth, even just a few thousandths, of a percent is
common.

However, to record any information (here sound) by an analogue process
requires that the information somehow be transduced to another form
having permanence, and these transduction processes all introduce
appreciable, audible distortion.

Much of this distortion is immediate obvious to the listener -
despite the care exercised by myself and the reasonable quality of my
equipment, the samples I provided still have some needle in the groove
noise, turntable rumble, and there is an audible difference in the
range of frequencies captured between the Project and the Dual.

However, in previous CD/Vinyl discussions here (search for them),
former recording engineers have recounted hearing an audible
difference between the masters and the resulting LPs, even when the
latter are played on studio standard equipment. This demonstrates
that the process of cutting a master, pressing a vinyl, and playing it
back introduces distortion. The fact that vinyl die-hards never get
to hear it, because they never get to hear the master, doesn't mean
that it doesn't exist. It does. I've only ever found one actual
figure for the THD of vinyl production, and it was a little suspect in
that it didn't come from an authoritative source, but IIRC it was
around 7%.

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 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.

Mine is the humble tin-whistle:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Dubl...heenDurkin.wav

Note how the whistle playing in the high register that opens the piece
is distorted (actual distortion is incipient on the its highest notes,
but it's more that the sound is somehow different than a real live
whistle - this is apart from the fact that I think they've also used
an echo or ambience device to give that bathroom effect). By
contrast, the one in the low register that joins in later, and the
voice, are reproduced near perfectly.

Why else do you think even the most fastidious of LP makers were so
keen to go digital for the master recording?

Exactly. And this is why they often tear the guts out of the sound
when remastering old analogue recordings for CD release, because they
feel that an audible hiss from the tape is just not acceptable. I've
long suspected that this is what happened to the Fleetwood Mac CDs
mentioned on my site. Rumours and the contemporaneous eponymous CD
were processed in some way, while Greatest Hits escaped this abuse,
hence the superior quality of the latter.

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.

Yes, also.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html