[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
On 31/12/2015 14:26, wrote:
snip
Irrelevant to comparisons of sound quality between formats.



Digital stuff you can buy at Guitar Center is capable of playing back
vanishingly close to what was recorded. This is objectively
true. You can demonstrate this by round-tripping test signals.

I'm sure it's possible to improve on it, but there's very little
to be gained from that.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:

As I said to Scott, maybe I need to listen to more modern analogue
stuff. I sort of gave up on it when it became so much cheaper to get the
performance I wanted using digital gear. That and losing the razor blades...

And that is absolutely, absolutely true. I am shocked at how good some
of the cheap digital gear is now, and it has come to the point where it
requires little fiddling or maintenance.

When I mentioned processing, though, I was including things like Dolby
which are included in most recorders. Tape without a compander is just
too noisy for my liking, and there are artefacts from the compander I
don't like.

Processing in the analogue domain is generally problematic, in part
because it's difficult to get delays in the analogue world. So things
like look-ahead limiters are effectively impossible. This makes things
like completely transparent companding out of the question.

listeners, a good analog recorder will do just fine. Where digital has
it over analog tape is that there's no flutter and 30 dB or more less
hiss. Bad flutter will make a piano sound "nothing like the original"
but it won't affect a railroad train.

True.

The thing is that even a _tiny_ amount of flutter is audible, and I am
convinced that this is part of what people like analogue tape machines
for. It can provide a "blending" where individual sounds are merged into
one ensemble. This can be a very useful thing for multitrack work where
you are building things up from isolated tracks, but it is of course a
terrible thing for a minimalist recording.

I was staggered at how much less of that blending you got from an Ampex 440
than from a 350, though... and the ATR-100 has really none of it if it is
set up perfectly.

When I record something, I record it to sound accurate, then I ask the
client how they'd like it to sound. Even classical music people now like
a fair amount of gain riding or compression, as they've grown used to a
more limited dynamic range on a recording than at a real live show.

And of course it's important to ask the client who is going to be listening
to it and how.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

John Williamson wrote: "
It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
if you're in the concert hall. ***This can not possibly be done with vinyl
or analogue tape***. "

***Baloney***!

Use minimalist miking techniques - coincident
pair if desired. Use one of those heads with the
mics in the 'ears'. Pay attention to the biggest
instrument in the room - the room itself! Make
it a good production, and it can be done in analog
or digital.

The biggest difference is processing in Post - how
much or how little. Lay off the excessive processing,
and you'll have a very realistic capture of what
went on in that hall.

Well, truth be told, John is correct here. All other things being equal -- and with
good converters, of course -- the bypassing of HF roll-off, HF cross-talk, HF
distortion, et al (vinyl), and the elimination of scrape flutter and various head
issues (tape), I too would usually go for good digital over good analog.

Now, if you want those various analog abberations as FX, that's fine, it's an
artistic call. But for the more "pure" delivery system -- especially these days with
modern converters (certainly not the horrors of yesteryear) -- digital is the
clear winner.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

snips

I'm just saying, record the same performance to
both analog and digital decks, same mics, same
everything else, and aside from minor background
hiss, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

You perhaps need a better monitor chain? Hiss is the least of the problems.

Take the digital into post, perform the
aforementioned processing, make a CD of it,
and you better bet there'll be a sonic difference!

The processing you noted is by no means required (I'm coming from a
classical/acoustic music POV, not pop. In the latter case, you might indeed need a
lot of processing to do the mangling automatically provided by analog.)

Again, that's more of an artistic decision. I just like to start clean and add to
taste. And having teethed in analog going back some 40+ years, modern digital is
a blessed relief.

I'm not saying analog is better, not at all. I'm just
pointing out that in comparing an analog and
digital recording of the same program, the difference
most folks are going to hear was applied in post.

I'll meet you halfway here; much will depend on the monitoring. In the average
living room, there might not be a hugely noticeable difference (much of course will
depend on the music and the performance). Bring it into a good room, however, and
you might be surprised at the sonic differences.

But good music will overshadow everything else -- and it's also nice when there's
nothing at all to distract from that good music.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "I get your point and understand your passion, but I think you're taking
this way too far. Whether or not a recording sounds like the original is
far more dependent on the microphones (and their placement) and the
playback speakers than whether the recording medium is analog or digital. "

THANK YOU MIKE!!! (clap clap clap)

Like I said, the digital proponents on
here have SOMETHING TO SELL.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Like I said, the digital proponents on
here have SOMETHING TO SELL.

Well, of course, but so do the analogue proponents. Life is just that way.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Trevor, et al:

The biggest differentiator is the SOURCE
itself. Feed that $20G home stereo
crap, and it will sound like crap. Feed it
quality, and it will sound great!

Sort of like a great photo, will look good on just about anything.

Jack

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 4:19 AM, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public. "

How do THEY know that nothing was done to one
that wasn't done to the other?


How do WE know you are a real person and not just some automaton
programmed to harp on about loudness etc ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 1:32 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 31/12/2015 11:53, wrote:
geoff wrote: "The telling thing to me re the 'vinyl accuracy' argument
is that you can
carefully digitally record the output of a vinyl playback, and a careful
digital replay may retain all the 'qualities' of the recorded vinyl
playback. Comapre that with a vinyl copy from a vinyl playback and see
how that stacks up.

Of course that doesn't relate to *accuracy* wrt the original master, ,
unless there existed a master that was not specifically destined for
vinyl. "


This^^ guy is trying to sell us something.

Logic, truth ? Yeah OK, we know you are not buying.


Yes, he's selling accurate recording methods. Even the best vinyl isn't
accurate, but it can sound quite pleasing.

It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
if you're in the concert hall. This can not possibly be done with vinyl
or analogue tape.

And the digital recording of the vinyl playback can sound just as
'pleasing' as the original vinyl playback, with whatever euphonic
artifacts tickled that pleasurable response.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 1:47 AM, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "
It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
if you're in the concert hall. ***This can not possibly be done with vinyl
or analogue tape***. "

***Baloney***!

Use minimalist miking techniques - coincident
pair if desired. Use one of those heads with the
mics in the 'ears'. Pay attention to the biggest
instrument in the room - the room itself! Make
it a good production, and it can be done in analog
or digital.

The biggest difference is processing in Post - how
much or how little. Lay off the excessive processing,
and you'll have a very realistic capture of what
went on in that hall.



What about recording with *no* post, other than simple linear
optimisation of levels for whatever playback medium. Plenty of that is
available.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 2:57 AM, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
Says the voice of someone with little or no experience of real life
recording. Go to an acoustic concert, record it, then see how close you
can get to that sound with analogue and digital equipment. Digital gets
closer every time.

I've done it both ways, and my experience backs up what I wrote. It even
works for location recordings of random
sounds you'd hear as you walk around the place.
- show quoted text -"

Yeah, digital gets closer alright, if you apply
a ton of EQ, dynamics, and reverb to the thing
in mastering!
Yeah, customers buying the thing will hear a
huuuge difference, and automatically think it's
"better".

I'm just saying, record the same performance to
both analog and digital decks, same mics, same
everything else, and aside from minor background
hiss, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

You've clearly never actually done this then. Or your playback equipment
was compromised to the point of masking even non-subtle differences.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 9:08 AM, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "I get your point and understand your passion, but I think you're taking
this way too far. Whether or not a recording sounds like the original is
far more dependent on the microphones (and their placement) and the
playback speakers than whether the recording medium is analog or digital. "

THANK YOU MIKE!!! (clap clap clap)

Like I said, the digital proponents on
here have SOMETHING TO SELL.



No. They are doing the best they can with what and in which way they
think can get the best results. Call that some clandestine agenda if you
like.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:


But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good analogue
gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines

I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).

I have heard neither.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 4:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:


The problem is that in the real world, mastering variations exist, and people
have to work around them. People who are actually sitting down and listening
to music don't care about what the theoretical best system is, they want to
know how to make their particular piece of music sound best.
--scott



However it is very easy to do a set of recordings in controlled
conditions. Don't most of us do this from time to time out of curiosity,
for various reasons comparing various parameters ?

Reminds me of the experiments (non-scientific) I did with friends who
could not discern a difference between generic interlnk cables, Monster
Cable ones, and unsheilded galvanised iron coat-hangers. Obviously not
phonolevel signals though ;-)

geoff

[david gourley[_2_]]

geoff said...news:Q8GdnecSwbb_LxjLnZ2dnUU7-
:

On 1/01/2016 11:54 AM, geoff wrote:
On 1/01/2016 4:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:


The problem is that in the real world, mastering variations exist, and
people
have to work around them. People who are actually sitting down and
listening
to music don't care about what the theoretical best system is, they
want to
know how to make their particular piece of music sound best.
--scott



However it is very easy to do a set of recordings in controlled
conditions. Don't most of us do this from time to time out of curiosity,
for various reasons comparing various parameters ?

Reminds me of the experiments (non-scientific) I did with friends who
could not discern a difference between generic interlnk cables, Monster
Cable ones, and unsheilded galvanised iron coat-hangers. Obviously not
phonolevel signals though ;-)

geoff


Oh yeah, and all the best from 2016.


geoff


Back atcha! You have a head-start on us over here in the states.

david

[Trevor]

On 31/12/2015 5:40 PM, geoff wrote:
On 31/12/2015 6:12 PM, Trevor wrote:


As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
the level of human intelligence. :-(

Unfortunately we're not all as intelligent as you Trev. If we were, the
world would have no problems ;-)

Can't argue with that! :-)


The telling thing to me re the 'vinyl accuracy' argument is that you can
carefully digitally record the output of a vinyl playback, and a careful
digital replay may retain all the 'qualities' of the recorded vinyl
playback. Comapre that with a vinyl copy from a vinyl playback and see
how that stacks up.

No need, anyone with a brain knows second generation tape or vinyl is
crap upon crap.



Of course that doesn't relate to *accuracy* wrt the original master, ,
unless there existed a master that was not specifically destined for vinyl.

Irrelevant to "accuracy". The playback simply needs to be accurate as to
what is delivered, no matter how inaccurate that is to the original
recording. As I already said, mastering variations have *nothing* to do
with accuracy *capabilities* of various media, even if they do affect
what you hear.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 31/12/2015 5:31 PM, geoff wrote:
On 31/12/2015 6:23 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 31/12/2015 7:58 AM, geoff wrote:
On 31/12/2015 4:21 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.

Would you settle for Wavy Gravy saying so?
--scott

If I knew of and respected Wavy Gravy's opinion, yes.

So what makes you respect someone else's *opinion* over your own, or
more importantly scientific measurements? Do you at least check their IQ
and knowledge of the subject, or is it simply blind faith?
Ever thought of researching the subject properly before forming your own
opinion instead?

The problem as I see it is that most people do not have time to research
everything properly for themselves, but still like to have an opinion on
everything.

Um, so you've never heard of, heard the work of, read anything about,
heard opinions of respected others, of Alan Parsons ? Or just don't
believe anything *anybody* says unless you've actually verified each
little detail yourself ?

Right, I take nothing as Gospel without verification. Anyone involved in
scientific research who does otherwise is simply a quack. Even the
greatest scientists often have OPINIONS that are incorrect. That is why
we separate opinion from verifiable data. That many people do not, and
don't even think it necessary is what is wrong with much of the world
today! :-(


Or maybe you have and simply don't think he knows much about music or
recording .....

I'm sure he knows things I don't. I'm also sure he doesn't know
everything! And probably doesn't know everything you think he does.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/01/2016 12:50 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 31/12/2015 11:51, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "As I've always said, mastering variations are
irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability"


And yet those mastering processes/decisions are
far more sonically audible than the differences
between formats(mp3, CD, and high-res lossless).
Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

Of course they can be and often are, who is it you think said otherwise?
Obviously not me since I already said that.


Post production processing is irrelevant in comparing the sound quality
of various formats. If you don't believe that, take a 24 bit recording,
then work through to 16 bit, then/ mp3 at various rates, and the
differences in quality will be obvious even on the average domestic
equipment.

The fact that processing needs to be different for analogue and digital
formats to get the best out of either is proof that the formats sound
different.

Actually proof that their capabilities are different, and thus may sound
different when mastered to suit the different capabilities. However one
may simply record to digital the output of a turntable or tape deck, and
*NO* difference will be heard, unless you really cock it up. As we all
know the reverse is not true.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/01/2016 2:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 31/12/2015 2:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Go to your local Bose dealer and get their demo. They have a standardized
procedure which is a brilliant piece of salesmanship. It uses very short
listening segments in such a way that the brighter sounding speaker will
almost always sound better.

There are plenty of brighter speakers than Bose, so they should fail
that test then.

If you actually compared them with some other brand of speakers, but you
can't do that at a Bose dealer.

Honestly, it is worth doing the demo because it very, very carefully calculated
to make bad speakers sound good, and to make the more expensive speakers in
the line sound better.

No thanks, I've heard more than enough Bose in my life to know I don't
want to buy them, so why waste my time with their sales tactics, which
I'm already well aware of, and are not exclusive to Bose anyway?



As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
the level of human intelligence. :-(

The problem is that in the real world, mastering variations exist, and people
have to work around them. People who are actually sitting down and listening
to music don't care about what the theoretical best system is, they want to
know how to make their particular piece of music sound best.

Right, mastering variations exist, and may be better or worse on
different formats for different recordings. I just don't see how
choosing an inferior system because there is some badly done digital
mastering (just as there was badly done vinyl mastering) helps anybody.
What we need to do is standardise on the the better system since it is
now far cheaper, and produce different mastering variations within that
(CD) format to suit everyone.
The only reason that is not done AFAIC is that there is still money to
be made selling more expensive (but inferior) equipment and media to
morons. Not that I care, other than it means we don't currently get the
choice of mastering variations on CD very often. Fortunately I can
"remaster" some CD's to suit myself to some degree, but unsquashing
hypercompressed and clipped CD's not as good as it would be if I could
buy a less compressed version, and squash it myself if I actually wanted
that.

[Trevor]

On 1/01/2016 9:49 AM, geoff wrote:
On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good
analogue gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines

I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).

You have to consider both the huge difference in machine cost as well as
the huge difference in media cost to feed them, and ask yourself if a
having a huge *loss* of dynamic range capability is worth that much to
you. If the answer is yes, you might be better off spending the money on
a therapist instead! :-)

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 7:35 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 1/01/2016 9:49 AM, geoff wrote:
On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good
analogue gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound
so much more
accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines

I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).

You have to consider both the huge difference in machine cost as well as
the huge difference in media cost to feed them, and ask yourself if a
having a huge *loss* of dynamic range capability is worth that much to
you. If the answer is yes, you might be better off spending the money on
a therapist instead! :-)

Trevor.



But waaay less money for more dynamic range ;-)

OK, maybe not the Zoom (or maybe). Yes, DR not the only factor !

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good analogue
gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines

I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).

Much of the difference is that you can set the ATR-100 up so that it isn't
transparent at all, if that's what you want.

The issue with the Zoom recorders are the mike preamps and gain controls
more than converters. The recording part is the easy part.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."