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

On 08/11/2011 12:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, 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.


And you are 'contributing' to that 'discussion', I think.

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"?


'Perhaps' it 'does'.

Rob

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

On 08/11/2011 11:01, David Looser wrote:
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.


Distortion doesn't cover a variable yet to be discovered. And please
don't ask me what that might be :-)

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?


It may be that systems of measurement do not accommodate the experience
fully.

Anyway, leaving that aside, is it the case that analogue recording will,
in all cases, produce audible distortion?

Thanks, Rob

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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:02:13 +0000, artiage
wrote:

Utter drivel!

No it's absolutely true, 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)
 

On 08/11/2011 10:14, David Looser wrote:
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).


No real idea. Greg Milner wrote a book 'Perfecting Sound Forever', in
which most of the explanations are, erm, odd. Reading it now in fact.

Mastering appears to be the most persuasive from information we have to
hand, although as you know, that if anything confuses the issue, if the
recording at home is from the same master.

Possibly the DAC, bit rates, compression where it's used, recording
techniques that make inappropriate assumptions about digital recording.
These are variables that people know something about.

Really don't know. The answer may well be 'distortion', but the use of
that word appears wrong. Like saying Constable painted a distorted
picture of a tree in a hayfield :-)

Rob

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

On 08/11/2011 13:46, Java Jive wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:58:10 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In raweb.com, 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.


I didn't say they were missing anything - I think I said they were
pretty good. Difficult for me to say how good. If you'd put something up
which I'm likely to have (Pink Floyd say) I can let you know.

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.


I think it captures what's necessary. Which makes it all the more weird.
I've got a good deal of my music on a computer nowadays. I've long
forgotten which are from CD, which digitised from LP. And while at first
listen they both sound 'hifi', it's pretty obvious which is preferable.
And not just to me.

Out of interest, generally which do you prefer: CD or digitised vinyl?

Rob

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

Rob wrote:

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

Not helpful to a particular belief system, or faith?

Bill

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

In article m,
Rob wrote:
Anyway, leaving that aside, is it the case that analogue recording will,
in all cases, produce audible distortion?

Yes. Very noticeably so, when in the case of tape you can do an A/B
comparison between input and output. Not so easy with vinyl. ;-)

--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

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

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

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
It has been a few decades now since I compared an LP with a CD of the
same music produced by the industry. All I can say is, in every case I
did try it, I preferred LP.

Many early CDs were simply a direct copy off the master tape - but with
possibly a steeper fade at the end of a track to provide silence between
them. And I'm trying to think of one such that didn't sound a lot better
than the LP.

--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

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

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

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

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.

It has been a few decades now since I compared an LP with a CD of the
same music produced by the industry. All I can say is, in every case I
did try it, I preferred LP.

I've done it at various times over the last few decades. And found the
results vary. Sometimes I prefer one, sometimes the other, sometimes they
are much the same. Depends entirely on the specific case.

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

I've never experienced that, I genuinely would like to. I have trouble
with almost anything I change sounding different.

I also find that things 'sound different' from hour to hour, day to day,
and if I move my head or open the door of the room. But I largely stopped
worrying about that having concluded that often makes more difference than
other things people fuss or argue about. It does however easily lead people
to decide differences caused by such effects are due to a change of source
or component, etc. That is why comparisions have to be done in a controlled
manner to give much chance of reliably identifying any real 'cause' from a
host of other effects that the listener may not have realised were
influencing what they heard.

I've recently had an
identical mp3 file on my synology NAS box and on a data stick. Both of
these files are accessible from my blu-ray player which outputs the data
as spdif to my AV8. They sound quite different. Thinking this must be
something to do with the way the BD is retrieving the data I thought try
another nas. So I downloaded some server software for a PC and got my PC
'doing a NAS' with the same file. Different again. The synology as far
as I know is serving in the same way as the PC UPNP? Something like
that. The Synology has quite a bit more bass than either of the other
two. Not better but different and I don't know why.

No idea why. But there are so many variables you and I don't know about it
would be almost pointless to speculate when you also add in the extraneous
influences like those I mention above.

That said, I've routinely measured different behaviour from such 'computer
based' systems. So now am cautious of any changes. I can't comment on the
kit you are using, but I now regard an asynch usb dac and a playing system
I've checked to give full and accurate sample sequences as being the start
point to avoid being tripped up.

e.g. You'd think a playing app would play 24 bit files OK. Yet although the
one I use plays 24-bit files as 24 if they are FLAC it loses the lowest 8
bits if they are LPCM Wave. Go figger! The data still emerges as '24 bit'
for Wave, but the bottom bits are all zeroed. Yet FLAC is fine. The player
software itselg gives no sign of what it is doing.

You can also have systems which resample (badly) without telling you.


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'm think I'm convinced about it being theoretically possible to convert
analogue to digital even at 16/44.1 which is audibly a perfect copy. I'm
less convinced it is actually possible.

You still haven't defined your use of "perfect" above. Just used the word
again.


I've certainly made transfers to CD that sounded indistinguishable
from the LP.

Wish I could.

Depends both on the kit and how it is used. I used Audio CD recorders for
years, taking care to avoid hum, clipping, etc. Just old fashioned taking
care and knowing what you are doing combined with kit that works OK.

I've now switched to using the Tascam HDP2. This is much more convenient
and flexible. But the old Audio CD recordings were fine for LP.

Afraid it is the case that some kit doesn't work as it should -
particularly in the 'computer audio' area which is still driven by computer
makers who may be clueless/careless about audio. caveat emptor.

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 , Java Jive
wrote:

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.

Add BBC FM to that from about the 1970s.

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%.

It varies a great deal with frequency, signal level, and from stereo to
difference, etc, etc. Also depends on choice of stylus shape, playing
force, and having a geometry that matches that used to cut the particular
LP.

You can find some simple measurements on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html

but that relates to 'best case' in many ways. As with FM expect the
distortion to be higher for high frequencies, difference signal,
misalignment, etc.

You can also find more figures in the AES and WW/EW literature. But these
days may have problems finding it if not an AES member or near a library
with a back-collection of journals. Most modern audio engineers lost
interest in LP decades ago.

How much it matters is a different question, of course. May not be noticed
on some material whilst being a PITA on other material.

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