What if digital had never happened

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Giacomo Belbo, Sep 12, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. enfield

    enfield Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex UK
    Sorry.:angel: Typed it in a rush.Can't edit now.
     
    The FRiNgE likes this.
  2. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I don't think audiophiles were lied to, as you assert was some evil plan. I think that a lot of people, professional and otherwise, truly believed that digital was superior. They heard the negative aspects of it, but chose to concentrate on the positives. Or at least they believe that the promise of better audio was at hand, that that we should jump into it to get it there.
     
  3. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Certainly! Today, many audiophiles find that they love the the fiddling and fussing over the equipment and picking out the best cart and such. But back then, and especially today, many do not. It's very obvious that many audiophiles like popping in a CD and kicking back to enjoy it. No cleaning or wiping, no having to carefully place a tone arm down on the plastic. No noise. No skips. No getting up after a side is done and flipping the record over. And, by the mid-80s, if you had a good player, the sound of CD wasn't bad at all! It wasn't just about convenience. Many people forget that the portability factor of CD didn't even come along until the 90s for a lot of people. That first attempt at portability was the DAT, and that was killed almost immediately as a consumer product in 1988 by the record labels. Looking back on how things turned out with CD-R and mp3, maybe they should have let it be.
     
  4. Claude Benshaul

    Claude Benshaul Forum Resident

    And there ladies and gentlemen is the great divide between music lovers who enjoy music, even when it's sound out of two tin cans and a piece of string vs the self styled audiophiles who prefers to spend their time patronizing us about how we are supposed to listen to music.
     
    Brother_Rael, nosliw and The FRiNgE like this.
  5. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I hope your next car as USB. It's much better than fiddling around with CD-R.

    If only if it weren't for that damn surface noise!
     
  6. The FRiNgE

    The FRiNgE Forum Resident

    Worse than that, my first turntable was the AR XA, fully manual with no auto arm return. After a hard day on the job, after dinner, I'd settle in my listening chair, and sometimes drift off a little. I'd sometimes awaken to "pssst- thump- pssst- thump" time to get up to flip the record... or just go the freck to sleep. :yawn:
     
    Grant likes this.
  7. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    Lied to is too strong of a word. Maybe misled? But even that is probably too strong. Obviously a lot of the professionals in the business were a little over optimistic about the current state of digital back in the late 80s and early 70s. But they were also probably optimistic about the possibilities for the future based on digital and didn't want to be negative about the current state of digital.

    I still think we lost at a minimum a decade of good recording due to the transition to digital recording. Would have been better off if everyone had continued recording to analog tape and transferring that tape to digital rather than recording straight to digital. Especially for classical music and similar music where you don't need to do much mixing and fixing so analog isn't so inconvenient. If I had instead bought several hundred AAD classical recordings during that period instead of several hundred DDD classical recording during that period I would be more happy with what I had spent my money on. Instead I'm left with what I consider a rather bad sounding collection of classical CDs from that period and I've had to rebuy those works in more recent digital recordings to get better sound quality.

    I didn't have the experience back then to really evaluate sound quality for myself the way that I can evaluate sound quality now. Back then I relied on reviews by professionals in Stereophile, Gramophone, Penguin Guide, and some other meta review guides for classical that compiled different reviews for classical and classified them by sound quality and performance quality. I relied on those reviews for what to buy. They were rating things like the DDD Telarc recordings very highly for sound quality. So I bought. I didn't know otherwise. But now I do.

    The good news is that modern recent classical digital recordings are very good. Digital is much better now than it was. I'm happy with the current state of digital. I still think it can get better. MQA is indicating that there are still problems with time smearing and such that can be improved on in digital recording and playback. But overall we're doing very well with digital right now.
     
    nosliw and The FRiNgE like this.
  8. Balthazar

    Balthazar Forum Resident

    Before digital, the only people I knew with decent turntables were DJs. I didn't know any audiophiles growing up. The average person I knew had a crap turntable and some garbage cassette deck, so it actually was a jump in sound quality going to CD. I didn't buy a CD player until 1988 or 1989. By then, they were great. Can't speak to the earlier ones.

    I've listened to some of those early Denon PCM Digital Classics records and they sound great, so it was clearly possible to have great sound quality even then.
     
    Robert C likes this.
  9. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Before digital, just about all of the audiophiles I knew were G.I.'s (That's what we used to call general infantry personnel. G.I. Joe, anyone? Now, we just call them soldiers.). They were the only ones that could afford the gear. They also always had nice cars. The better for them to pick up underage teenage girls with.:ignore:

    Even though I can hear the flaws, the early GRP label digital recordings made with the Soundstream recorders sounded nice.
     
    GuildX700 likes this.
  10. xfilian

    xfilian Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    And that is ultimately all that matters. I have read posts on here that are literally scientific texts on the merits of digital audio. A lot of it I confess to having no understanding of but then it does not actually interest me because none of these utterances affect whether I like or dislike the sounds coming out of my speakers. Analogue sounds more pleasing to my ears. That is all.
     
    Claude Benshaul likes this.
  11. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    It's not a difficult debate for me in the least.

    Here is a post from the forum host from ten years ago that's relevant to this discussion:

    SH Spotlight - What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or a 1:1 analog Reel tape copy?

    "First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.

    I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...:eek:

    A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

    FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

    We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

    We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

    Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:

    The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

    The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.

    Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.


    SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).

    So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.

    Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.

    THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:

    We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.

    So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.

    Regarding the lowly phonograph record:

    We know that records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money."

    Your comments are welcome.

    Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.

    Sorry again for some awkward English in this; my proofing time was limited (but not compressed)."
     
    Jtycho likes this.
  12. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida, Central

    My records played great then and still do, but back in the day, I remember well, thinking what if the less than beautiful aspects of records could be fixed.

    Maybe that bit of rumble way down there could be gone...
    Instead of 35 db of separation, we could have 90db...!
    Instead of -55 noise levels, we could have -90...!
    Frequency response would not waver all over the place based on what cart I used.

    Distortions of any type nearly vanished.

    There were many that had very real concerns with very real issues of vinyl. I still love my records, can easily overlook minor flaws, but they are still flaws.
    It may add character or ambiance or make it sound smoother or more natural, but as pleasant as they are to listen to, to this day, I am not quite sure they are truly accurate.

    To some audiophiles, accuracy and lack of distortions and all the physical issues of vinyl being gone was a huge step forward.
    I still "love" both, but never delude myself into thinking records are perfect. I just like how they sound!
     
  13. enfield

    enfield Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex UK
    I don't disagree that an analogue record player will sound most like an analogue mastertape.Just as a CD player will sound most like a digitally recorded master.My point is that a digital recording is more accurate to the sound produced IN the actual studio through the instruments and desk ,than an analogue master is.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  14. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida, Central

    I have seen that post also, and it is quite interesting to see a pro's opinion or thoughts on what sounds like the master tape.
    Just out of curiosity, have you seen similar sentiments from other mastering or recording pros in the field?
     
  15. Ron Scubadiver

    Ron Scubadiver Forum Resident

    Location:
    Houston TX
    Well, digital happened, and it can't unhappen. This is a bit like asking what it would be like if the Nazi's won WW II.
     
  16. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida, Central
    Iron Sky - Wikipedia

    That has been answered quite well in this movie....:shh:
     
    Claude Benshaul likes this.
  17. Brother_Rael

    Brother_Rael Senior Member

    Boom!! This.
     
  18. Agitater

    Agitater Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    The sales figures don't support your contention. There were certainly some markets in which 8-track had a consumer following. But in all major markets, 8-track sold in the small handfuls compared to the vastly larger volumes of LP and compact cassette..

    Everybody knows the original uses of the cassette format. This thread is strictly about music though, and that's was the basis for my reference.

    Again, I don't think actual sales numbers bear that out. Compact cassette absolutely gained significant market share, but it was ultimately more of a sidestep than a replacement of LP. Most households in which music featured prominently during the mid-70s through the late 80s had both turntable and cassette deck, no doubt, but the LP collecdtion was always larger (with a few exceptions as time progressed). 8-track, by contrast could rarely be found. According to industry sources whom I was close to at the time - mainly major retailers - LP didn't truly drop off the map for them until CD sales ramped up. When CD sales ramped up, it was almost a vertical climb that from about 1986 through 1995 hammered all other formats to death.

    I'm not sure exactly what it is that hasn't been good for the industry, as you put it. In every field of endeavor, there's a struggle for the best to excel. It was true during the A&R days that the labels ruled over with iron and usurious fists, and it's true now among the labels, A&R people, and all the empowered independents. While back in the day the only way to get airplay was mainly through a label and its contacts, today artists have multiple distribution and contact vectors. If on the other hand, you're actually commenting on the fact that good musicians have to work harder to get to the top in situations in which they're not represented by a label, then that only reflects the fact that all fields of work and creative expression are harder places to get noticed than ever before.
     
  19. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida, Central

    I remember way back in the day, when Digital was still fairly new.
    Some magazine specifically just about the new upcoming digital players and such (Ancient and expensive looking now) compared one of the best turntables of the day, with a fantastic cartridge, to the Digital disc player.

    They used several test tones, like 30hz, 100hz, 1khz, 5khz and 10khz at various levels on some test record they had made and on a similar CD I guess they had made for their test lab.

    The distortion results were close to zero on the CD at every frequency and at every level.
    The record, had relatively low distortions on most of the test tones at very low levels, but at even mildly high levels, it went well into several percent especially at the high frequencies.
    They made a comment that stuck in my mind, something akin to: "if the test record, using one of the best tables and carts made, could not even reproduce simple test tones with great accuracy, how can it possibly reproduce music with multiple tones all at once, even close to accurately?"

    I still love vinyl and while their test was stringent, it pulled things into some kind of focus to me.
     
  20. Litejazz53

    Litejazz53 Perfect Sound Through Crystal Clear Digital

    That has and continues to happen to "everyone" that played vinyl or still plays vinyl today, happened to me a couple of times lately, and I remember when it happened I think, what the heck, why am I doing this? :shrug:
     
  21. captwillard

    captwillard Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville
    It's a stupid article. He might have well have asked, what if computers were never invented. At least he would be able to make an intelligent argument.
     
    nosliw likes this.
  22. Claude Benshaul

    Claude Benshaul Forum Resident

    I love Iron Sky, espeically the scene where they ask who hasn't militarized their satellites and space stations. I still have the movie stored on the NAS, but they didn't exactly won WWII
     
  23. Ron Scubadiver

    Ron Scubadiver Forum Resident

    Location:
    Houston TX
    Try the "Man in the High Castle". It's very entertaining.
     
  24. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    No, but what he writes here on note decay on the piano

    "The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution."

    echoes what a classical pianist said to me years and years before I stumbled on SH Forums. He said he knew at the beginning of the CD era something was wrong with the sound of piano digitised and didn't like it, despite CD being a boon to classical music due to its improved noise floor qualities. Can't have everything it seems.
     
  25. tim185

    tim185 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    Because tones have SFA to do with music, which has enormous dynamics and complexity by comparison. Just like how anti skate test record tones are of minimal value. We dont listen to tones. Tones are best kept to aligning tape machines etc.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine