I want to love vinyl, but...

As I sit and listen to my press of Zep's Presence, I'm thinking there is only one way to get the original Atlantic Studios mastering. .
Things like this I do find to make a difference.
No A to D and then back to A tomfollery.

 

You need high sampling rates and bit-depth to get closer to real life sound.

You need 4k to get closer to real life visual.

The higher the digital resolution, the more lifelike the results. That is done without the colorations of the analog formats. Analog introduces distortion, or deviation from the original. Of course, some people like those colorations.

Analog is a flavor. That's all it is. The technology exists for it to get extremely close. Same with digital. These analog vs. digital arguments are tiring.

 

So true as it really all comes down to preference.

 

Yep. First and Last and Always.

 

That's not exactly what I said.

Why would there be? It was a controlled, ABX/DBT that defined the level of differentials in audibility.

So, lets see if I understand what you're asking me to do here. You're asking me to respond to an unspecified german magazine who did an undefined test with unstated statistical results that are apparently in opposition to my opinion. Do I have that right?

You state a premise then imply it's wrong. Are you sure it's wrong? What tests have you made, read, or participated in?

New premise: We can somehow process a digital signal so that it is either: A. Better than the input signal, B. More similar to vinyl or C. Both. Who states that as a premise, much less claims it is possible?

And this premise: Vinyl reproduction is (somehow) better than the original input signal. Yes, that actually IS what you're suggesting, that the entire vinyl chain is an improvement over its input signal, ignoring that in every single aspect of the reproduction of the original, it is much worse, less accurate, and adds additional signals that were not part of the original.

Just making sure I understand the position before I decide if it's worth my effort to respond.

 

I don't see why? There were truths to both sides of our arguments.

Yeah - that is all it is - just a flavor.

 

Exactly - reason why we listen to records and buy high quality masters when we can - we want to believe we are listening as close as possible to the original source. Nothing at all wrong with that belief.

 

The idea that analog is somehow more organic or "real" is nothing but rhetoric, and unscientific. Sound waves get turned into electrical impulses the second they hit a transducer. Sounds turns into electrical impulses when they hit your ear. So, what he's saying is that one electrical impulse is more organic than another? No. Un-uh! Electricity is electricity.

 

True.
I'll go as far as saying that getting the 'right' pressing can have as much, if not more, importance as the rest of one's analog rig.
Junk in, junk out.

Many that don't get vinyl may not be doing the research?

 

It's not that I believe "analog sound reproduction is a perfect..", but by the nature of it's reproduction (physical, not numerical)
it is closer than the original sound (also physical,) than something numerical. I don't hear as many cds reproducing a piano,
voice or drums as realistically (to my ears,) as many of my records do. And there is no question that analog playback also
introduces sound that digital does not, but nevertheless.

 

My electrons are better than your electrons.

 

But with digital are not you boxed in by algorithms written by engineers to hopefully approximate what is analog?

 

I replaced my Eustachian tube with a Vacuum tube

 

Oh so analog isn't used at all. Got it.

 

So, there is no sense in going to hear a live orchestra (or any live music, for that matter,) I guess, because the better way
(according to your "Fact") is to just get the best digital file of the orchestra, and not be concerned about things like hearing
live musical instruments, and musicians, etc. Okaaay.

 

Finally, at last..... it took us to Page 30, but I think we have this whole thing sorted, and everyone is in agreement!

See, if we put our minds to it, we can accomplish anything!

 

I'm sure some would agree, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I'm not saying it's superior, I think in many cases (imo) it sounds better. Is it the mastering? Is it from better tapes? Is it because it's analog? I don't care actually.
But if I'm going to play music, I know which albums that I will pull the record out, and not the cd. - That's all that matters.

 

I got tired of playing the good pressing/bad pressing game. You'd hope that albums produced from the same mastering would sound the same, and they don't.

 

So what did you opt for instead that always sounds good, and you don't have to worry about good vs bad mastering or source quality?

 

I didn’t say or imply that. You did. Nice try.

 

O.k. sorry, my misunderstanding.

 

Not exactly. The inner ear vibrations are then translated into electrical impulse is transmitted by neurons. Those are discrete packets of energy. Like a digital signal.

 

Several things wrong with the above. 1. "Lifelike"? That's far too vague to have any meaning to sampling rate or bit-depth. "Lifelike" usually implies a presentation that mimics real life. That's a recording problem first, and has nothing at all to do with bit-depth or sampling rate beyond 16/44. It's a problem of how to capture a 3 dimensional sound field correctly. Then it's a reproduction problem, how to replicate a 3 dimensional sound field correctly. Since both are impossible, what we're dealing in is not real life at all, but an acceptable, believable and entertaining version of an even, real or synthetic, that pleases the listener.

Bit-depth is entirely about total dynamic range. There are no actual performance spaces that have a dynamic range that challenge 16 bits, and there are very few listening spaces that do either. But dynamic range is one tiny, relatively insignificant part of "real life". Then sampling rate, which only has to do with the highest recordable frequency. Turns out, 22kHz is fine, and there's nothing in real life that matters above that, since it's all inaudible. The on small possible advantage to higher sampling rates is possibly lower high frequency intermodulation distortion in certain (but far from all) digital systems.

What you really need for "real life" is dimensionality, which you can't even come close to with two channels, not even with binaural. So, "real-life" is not a goal, not for recording, and not for reproduction. What is the actual goal is to create a presentation that represents the actual even enough to communicate the original message emotion, and feel. We do that just fine with 16/44, and all of the analog systems that have even less performance capabilities.

Nope. The pixel dimension of a displayed digital image don't relate to real life either, not in any aspect at all. 2K, 4K, or 8K or higher only have meaning when screen size and viewing distance is included. You can be far away enough from 2K that you see no pixels, and you can be so close to 4K that you see pixels. It's not about that.

Digital imaging is not ever about capturing reality. Even 3D imaging doesn't do it because the virtual image cannot be physically placed in the correct plane. Nope, it's not about real life at all, but rather a presentation that conveys the message, and is pleasingly entertaining in the process. It's all a fake job, just a matter of what you accept as a good enough fake to get the point across.

Still wrong. It depends on the size and distance of the display to the viewer. And then there's dynamic range, a limitation of the display that, even with HDR, doesn't even come remotely close. It's still an artificial representation that conveys an intent or feeling, it's not replicating real life at any rolution.

Absolutely!

I believe people who have gotten used to or prefer analog colorations have never heard a live mix in a real control room without it ever being recorded. That's the reference for the goal in the technology. It's just not the reference for the analogites. Analog anything absolutely does not replicate the original mix, no matter how much someone might like it.

Just a minor quibble. Analog is an attempt to replicate its input that is flawed in many very obvious and audible ways. Digital can and does replicate its input perfectly, if permitted to do so.

Yeah, that's for sure.