S888Wheel wrote:
From: michael
When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
signal.
Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?
You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record
are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the
record/diamond interface. Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
such) be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
passages? In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
non-musical program noise.
I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).
That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts
at least claim that live music is their reference.
Well...that's what they claim in any case. When one listens to a live
performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
be heard on a recording. But we are speaking and writing of two
different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which
is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient
acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program.
I am a Wagner fan. Let's look at two different recordings: first, the
Boulez Bayreuth Ring (Phillips) and, second, the Levine Met Ring
(DGG-the CD version and not the DVD live recording). The first was an
all digital (except Gotterdammerung) 'rehearsal' recording and exhibits
all one would expect from a live performance except audience artifacts
(since no audience was present). That is, stage noises from the cast
jumping around on the floor, and sets moving, etc. This is caught on
the digital tape quite clearly and can be heard apart from any
additional vinyl artifacts. The Levine set, on the other hand, being a
studio recording arises from an imperceptible noise floor and one hears
nothing but the musical notes (and singing).
When making a CD copy of both I can attest to the vinyl noise of the
former (which I have records of), but the latter is a CD version and my
subsequent copies have no additional noise (simply copying digit for
digit).
On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
feeling about it due to "digital silence". It is true that we do not
experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is
what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the
analog crowd. Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference"
to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is
presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog
front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to
psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our
normal experience.
Now, in the analog world we also experience studio recordings, but they
always have some tape hiss along with the heretofore mentioned vinyl
background crud. Listening to them is nothing like listening to a CD.
Often the vinyl background crud is high enough to mask the master analog
tape hiss (assuming no Dolby or dbx was used in which case tape hiss may
not be a factor).
As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was
quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the
CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track
abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this
"silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but
because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my
first indication that digital really does capture everything.
michael