AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: michael
Date: 12/23/2004 8:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

Again it is a bit broad. I am sure the TT system, the cutting lathe and the
quality of the pressing all come into play. You cannot take any old record and
plop it on any old record player and assume that this is any kind of standard
for the medium.

Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
such)

If indeed.

be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
passages?

Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
though.

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'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the
universitality of it.

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.

It certainly is what I claim. It is the truth in my case. I cannot speak for
all others.

When one listens to a live
performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
be heard on a recording.

Really? That would sem to me to be a defective recording then. What else is
missing I wonder?

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.

You were speaking of what people are acustomed to. If people who generally
prefer vinyl are acustomed to live music as a reference then your argument that
they are not used to the lower noise floor of digital holds no water. The
higher noise floor of vinyl clearly is not present in the cited reference, live
music.

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).

We still don't know how good your records/TT playback system are so we cannot
take it as representative of SOTA. Your findings are valid for your transfers.
they are not neccessarliy representative of the thresholds of the medium
itself.

On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
feeling about it due to "digital silence".

What do you consider "digital silence" to be? How is it eerie or unnatural?

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.

If it is capturing the ambient sound of the venue then it shouldn't be eerie or
unnatural sounding. It should not present any problem for the "analog crowd" if
live music is their reference (it is mine).

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.

Normal experience being experience with live music?

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.

Depends on the recording, mastering, pressing and playback equipment.

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.

I happen to be a major Yes fan. I will happily recomend specific pressings of
any Yes album that sonically clobber any and all fo the available CD versions
of any given title.