The night of the long knives, fortunately for your friend and humble narrator they’re rubber knives. 😬 Let’s call it night of the rubber chickens 🐔🐔
Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other
One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:
Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital
I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?
High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two. Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?
This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital
I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?
High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two. Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?
This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
269 responses Add your response
I wonder who wrote this .... and whether they are a real scientist, or a quack? "Götterdämmerung Let’s say a recording was made of a live performance of Götterdämmerung with the Berliner Philharmoniker on July 21, 1930 between 12 Noon and 5 PM. During the performance the actual time coordinates of what was then Present Time - a unique time coordinate for each instant of the performance - are somehow captured on the recording along with the acoustic information of the musical instruments and singers. When the recording of Götterdämmerung is played at some point in the future - say, one day in 2010 - the stream of time coordinates from July 21, 1930 is projected into the listening room by the speakers along along with the acoustic information. The two out-of-synch streams of time coordinates - the Past Time coordinates from July 21, 1930 and the Present Time coordinates - confuse the listener and reduce his sensory acuity. So, even though the glorious sound of the Berliner Philharmoniker is reproduced in the room the listener cannot hear it in all its glory. " p.s. the paragraph about predators and the internal clock ... ya, that is all pretty much quackery too, not to mention we evolved from animals that had the ability to measure direction and location with sound site, 10's of millions of years before the "dawn of man", of course many lower animals can do this as well. |
roberttdid OP When a dude who lies about his qualifications as a physicist (I read old posts), sells Magic Pebbles to improve sound, and claims to improve audio via a telephone call .. just the call, not a call about audio, ...calls you a pseudo scientist, I will take that as high praise. Must really burn your Geoff that you never got published, not once, after that paper in what Junior High and people who actually contribute to science like me get published, cited, even invited to speak. Your envy and jealously is really ugly but keep doing you. >>>You are one angry pseudo scientist. 😡 Are you trying out for the angry old fart on 12 Angry Men? 😃 A device only has to be ahead of the average Joe Blow’s understanding to be considered magic or a hoax. Everything’s topsy turvy, me topsy, you turvy. 🤗 |
Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). It’s clear robberrttddidd is a pseudo scientist, not a very good one. |
For whatever it is worth, I followed mikelavigne's recommendation and bought Ferit Odom's Dameronia with Strings LP. My system, especially turntable, is very limited but I do have to admit that this LP sounds "good". I will not claim it has this or that, loudness wars, natural, accurate, and whatever else is argued here, but, if you like that kind of music, I would recommend you try it. There is also a CD version of it. I think it comes from same analog tapes, but it exists. |
When a dude who lies about his qualifications as a physicist (I read old posts), sells Magic Pebbles to improve sound, and claims to improve audio via a telephone call .. just the call, not a call about audio, ...calls you a pseudo scientist, I will take that as high praise. Must really burn your Geoff that you never got published, not once, after that paper in what Junior High and people who actually contribute to science like me get published, cited, even invited to speak. Your envy and jealously is really ugly but keep doing you. Your repeated Wrong use of the term empirical evidence shows you do not know how to do research and I expect you never have. What you describe as empirical evidence is anecdotal evidence. I borrowed someone else's words but here, let me spell it out for you. Maybe you will learn something.
As a layperson in research I can understand your error. Empirical evidence can be observational, not hard measured, and you make the leap that that includes anecdotal evidence but it does not. It still needs to meet the scientific requirements of unbiased and repeatable Here, this article may help: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/ |
rauliruegasI respect your polite and factual tone... I want to say that what i read incline me toward your view point in principle, but in concrete experience with one anolog audio system or another more refined, i am not sure that a very refined analog system will not surprise my factual reasons to place the digital technology ahead ( the reasons you described)... I respect you and thanks you for your interesting posts anyway.... |
Pure baloney!! This is the oldest con game in audio, so-called “objectivists” dismissing listening results when listening results are empirical evidence, you know, one of the foundations of the scientific method. Don’t let the pseudo scientists con you. At least we have identified 👀 them. Just more jibber jabber from the usual suspects. Be vigilant, they can be very slippery, like eels. |
@rauliruegas If someone says cable A sounds better than cable B, that is a Subjective opinion. If that same someone can reliably differentiate between cable A and cable B in a controlled blind test, then we have Objective proof the cables are different. Anyone who doesn't believe in blind testing really does not trust their ears no matter what they may claim. |
Dear @magister : """
Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now.... The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is.... "" I have to disagree with you in what you posted there and the post that followed this one. Maybe could be because I'm talking of different subjects than you and other gentlemans. Even if through my posts you can think I'm diminished subjective opinions I want to confirm again that I did not and don't and my expression of the word " illusion " was not with a despective or dimished way to offend in no way the subjective gentleman opinios and if they take it ( as you ) my apolize for those. Now, exist no debate between subjectivity and objectivity. It can't exist in any way. Facts/objectivity are inviolable and with absolute certainty when in the other side opinions/subjectivity can't gives any one else but the one person with that opinion absolute certainty. The main subject in what I posted before is to know not what we like to listen and its quality levels but if the self inherent LP limitations non-accurated technology can be more accurated than the digital medium. Again what you like it or what I like it is almost unimportant to other than you or me and useless to analize that accuracy levels in those way different mediums to listen MUSIC. No room/system quality levels can't change/improve any medium limitations. Here two of my posts to read it as an " abstract " way and only as facts where exist not only certainty about but a lot of measured information all over not only the links other gentlemans posted but over the internet: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/vinyl-high-qual-analog-tape-high-res-digital-one-of-these-is/post?postid=1972331#1972331 https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/vinyl-high-qual-analog-tape-high-res-digital-one-of-these-is/post?postid=1972922#1972922 Till today any advocated audiophile to LP over digital on which is truer to the recording posted yet any single fact that could tell us the LP superiority to be truer to the recording than digital medium. This is the subject idea I'm posting in this thread but maybe I did not understnd it what you or other gentlemans are or have under discussion. Btw: http://harryshifi.com/images/vinyl_tutorial.pdf Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
For example, the words transparent, congealed, analytical, boomy, synthetic, etched, tinny, two-dimensional and compressed can have different meanings to different people.These words are variable in their meaning similarly for the scientific so called mind or for the ignorant so called audiophiles....These words are related to the particular environment where they are used one time and by the particular people that use them.... No objective content of these words exist in the absolute sense....They are only relative orientation of meaning without an absolute consensus and they are not reducible to the reading of some numbers dials either.... My best to you in your future from my past.... :) |
+1 mahgister - Excellent treatise on philosophy of listening and why you can never know what someone’s system sounds like without actually 🔜 being there 🔙 and hearing it yourself. Technical descriptions, color photographs, subjective evaluations cannot suffice for 🔜 being there 🔙 and hearing for yourself. For one thing, subjective descriptions of a system’s sound can be misleading, intentionally or not. Words describing sound can have different meanings to different people. For example, the words transparent, congealed, analytical, boomy, synthetic, etched, tinny, two-dimensional and compressed can have different meanings to different people. |
cd318 Thanks for your generous comment on my posts first... If you wish to trust individual testimonies ahead of data then that’s your prerogative, but how does that help us decide which format is the most accurate?My point is precisely that, it is impossible to solve that for now definitively, because too many factors are implicated+ a subjective experience(mikelavigne and friends) that no one neither any science can dismiss scientifically except by dogmatic affirmations based on numbers... In this instance, since a question was posted, dialogue must involve acknowledging other opinions before making a judgement, must it not?Dialogue is possible indeed only if one recognise the scientific fact of irreducibility of subjective experiences to numbers.... For the question posed by the OP i answer by a neutral stance, i am sure that digital is good and will progress in the years to come.... But i am sure also that some improved way to read vinyl on very high end system, can be also implemented, and can be now for some people, able to afford it, "better" to their ears.... How can we judge them wrong? Except by receding ourself to a non scientific dogma of the reducibility of the conscious perceiving experience to numbers? I use myself only digital by the way......But i dont want to dismiss lavigne experience to a peculiarity of taste only because some measured engineering facts said so..... In a single word, for what we know now digital is on par or better than vinyl theoretically speaking, but for some listener it is not....Why reducing their experience to "illusion"? I trust numbers and i trust people experience....For now the debate can be interesting indeed, but cannot be closed dogmatically but must stay a DIALOGUE precisely especially if someone has investigated with much money, time, and a very high end system....Never mind in day to day experience by ordinary listener, no ordinary system comparison can solve this question once for all, except dogmatically by appeal to numbers in place of human ears experience....My grain of salt.... My best regards to you for your generous takes on my impressions.... |
mahgister, Interesting comments, as ever "Information data is not perceived sounds, purely objective perceived sounds are not musical sounds, and musical sounds are never subjectively evaluated and perceived in exactly the same manner by all individuals in any environments...." No one’s arguing with that, are they? "Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now....Immmanent participation of all consciousness is the new paradigm in science...." Since when? "Like in many audio forum debates about cables for example, the analog/digital debates, defenders and opponents are like 2 cats reading the other’s grin with a replicating grin, and the 2 cats disapearence at the end let only their 2 grins mimicking one another, without any cats anymore like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll...." Yes, but one cat is armed with measurable data which stands up to repeated testing. The other isn’t. If progress isn’t built upon technology and science, then what is it built upon? Some vague notions of consumerist faith, belief and superstition? "The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is...." Yes we’re both free to perceive and interpret any way we want to, but we’re discussing the differing merits of tape, digital and vinyl playback (and recording). Or are we not? "I will repeat myself, " In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN...." :)" If you wish to trust individual testimonies ahead of data then that’s your prerogative, but how does that help us decide which format is the most accurate? "Dialogue between people not pretending to be right and others wrong is the only interesting way....." In this instance, since a question was posted, dialogue must involve acknowledging other opinions before making a judgement, must it not? Best wishes to you my friend |
Information data is not perceived sounds, purely objective perceived sounds are not musical sounds, and musical sounds are never subjectively evaluated and perceived in exactly the same manner by all individuals in any environments.... Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now....Immmanent participation of all consciousness is the new paradigm in science.... Like in many audio forum debates about cables for example, the analog/digital debates, defenders and opponents are like 2 cats reading the other’s grin with a replicating grin, and the 2 cats disapearence at the end let only their 2 grins mimicking one another, without any cats anymore like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll.... The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is.... I will repeat myself, " In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN...." :) Dialogue between people not pretending to be right and others wrong is the only interesting way..... |
Dear @roberttdid @cd318 : "
there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound. " Our brain " reaction " to any stimulus or condition is surrounded by many factors that constantly makes the brain perceive or react in different ways to the same kind of " stimulus ". In other thread where the subject is direct drive/idler drive and belt drive TT designs and which is better in between Mike was posting there because he owns all those kind of TTs diferent drive designs and because he owns the best of the best on each TT kind of drive. Some one asked how he choose the one to his listening sessions that can gives him the higher enjoyment and his answer was something near this: " depending of my mood ". Our mood or stress levels and factors like these affects directly the brain response in that moment to what we are listening. For me subjectivity is valid when it matchs an objective fact because in this condition the fact proves that subjective issue. Facts are and have permanency and does not changes if everything the same but subjectivity is a focus of several levels of changes that depends of many other subjective issues. The real imposibility by any cartridge to pick up the full information recorded in the LP surface never changes but what we can listen one day to other with the same recording can change. In this thread the audiophiles with posted subjective arguments those arguments were not matched through facts that can proves those subjective arguments. Some one mentioned reviewers and I know some of them ( ST, TAS, etc. ) that are posting in other forums out of Agon as a fact some of them M.Fremer, Seydor, Atkinson did it here in Agon but they don't do it anymore mainly because here we are to direct and the high knowledge level audiophiles that exist here always were questioning the reviewers opinions and several times they just can't answer. Why made I this comment?, because some of them read some Agon threads. Could be interesting to know the points of view of MF/others in this specific dialogue and if they have some information that we are not taking in count because several audiophiles and newcomers take their opinions as they guide that some times is really a misguide. Anyway, trhough this thread I confirmed information I already have it and learned/enhanced those information and learned new " issues " that I never took in count for my overall opinions in this specific subject. Thank's for all those. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Oh, geez, two snappy retorts in a row. Be still my heart. Which illustrates what I’ve been saying all along, two 1/2 wits doesn’t always equal one whole wit. 😳😳 it’s nice to know I can always count on you two knuckleheads for something stupid. In robberrttddidd’s case probably too much time in front of an oscilloscope fried his brain. 🍳 We can probably blame the public school system on glubson. |
glupson In fact, it was "pseudo scientists" that caught my attention. >>>>>Never get into a technical argument with a history major, if history has taught us anything. How can a non technical person be expected to decide which argument is correct. Answer at 11. Cue glubson for clever retort. |
cd318 Needless to say that cable merchants, snake oil doctors, magic pebble peddlers etc all tend to all be firmly on the subjectivist side. No surprises there. >>>>>Logical fallacy alert. 🚨 No surprises there if you’re a self-annointed pseudo skeptic. Typical phony baloney argument presumably made to create a false concept of US and THEM, everything is BLACK and WHITE with them. Controlled blind tests promoted by Olive and Toole are in fact.... subjective. Hello! I like Toole, he was great in Lawrence of Arabia. |
roberttdid, So not only is there this distinction between what we seek from a recording, ie accuracy or pleasure (objectivist v subjectivist), not only is there great confusion for the consumer regarding what the recording was intended to sound like (audio's circle of confusion), there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound. Signal processing is an entirely separate issue and a no less complex one. A 2009 study even indicated that some Stanford students preferred lower bitrate recordings to higher bitrate ones (192kbps to 320kbps). "Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information." For the purposes of this post it's fairly safe to conclude that digital does hold more data than tape. Tape can sound wonderful no doubt, but it's fairly obvious that successive generations of tape recording (bouncing down) have far more serious implications for its sound quality than digital copying ever does. The 1960s, especially the latter half, saw many recordings following in the footsteps of Phil Spector/Joe Meek etc with dubbing and overdubbing and bouncing down repeatedly. Daniel Lanois often used these techniques to great effect. Some of those recordings as works of art hold up well, but sonic masterpieces they're not, ie the background is often a load of mush. Pleasant mush, but mush nonetheless. As any fan of the Mamas and the Papas can tell you. |
mikelavigne, I have worked in an aspect of the audio industry that has given me "access" to musicians and recording processes in fairly recent history, including some boutique all analog work flows. Raul, et. all, please note one key aspect of what I posted. I stand by 24/192 containing far more "raw" information than vinyl/tape. However, note, that I also stated (in different words), that that does not mean that more information makes it into the brain, at least useful information from a musical appreciation stand point. This has nothing to do with technically ignorant hypotheses w.r.t. "continuous vs. discontinuous", timing, etc. which are born out of a lack of understand of signal processing. It goes to more fundamental aspects of how humans "hear" music. Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information. Noise can improve signal detection. Cross-talk can reduce complexity (information), but also creates different spatial perceptions, and can even cause acoustic cancellation improving actual separation at the ears (especially with near field listening). |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
rauliruegas, An excellent attempt to navigate what can be a confusing pathway. There has always been an immediate divergence in the differing paths followed by audiophiles, namely that vital decision of whether to discover what was actually recorded or to follow whatever pleases you most. I suspect many audiophiles follow the latter and always will. If they admit it, that's great. It's when they claim it's better, more accurate etc that problems begin. This is the infamous objectivist v subjectivist dichotomy. This schism exists not only due to personal choice of the listener but also due in part to the existence of the circle of confusion on audio that Toole and Olive talk about. Hardly anyone can know what the recording is supposed to sound like. Audiophiles are notorious for casual dismissing of what others say, including producers, engineers, and musicians who were actually involved in the recording! They are often equally dismissive of technical data accumulated over decades. Yet they will readily listen what some reviewers may have written. Reviewers who have no more qualification in knowing what was recorded than they have. Reviewers whose opinions immediately disintegrate once the object they're reviewing is hidden from plain sight! Needless to say that cable merchants, snake oil doctors, magic pebble peddlers etc all tend to all be firmly on the subjectivist side. No surprises there. So are we at an eternal impasse or is there a way forward? Is reconciliation even possible between those who want accurate sound and those who want a sound they like? I suspect not. I'm prepared to acknowledge that digital is a more accurate recording medium than tape, at least in theory. As for playback, again in theory, digital holds a measurable advantage over tape and vinyl. In fact I'd argue that a vinyl record can never sound better than the mastertape it was taken from. In practice though things are not so clear due to all the futzing around with the sound the recording industry is notorious for. Certain period albums still sound best on vinyl and will always remain that way due to industry indifference and sometimes the ravages of time inflicted upon the original tapes. https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html?m=1 |
rauliruegas Other importan reason why could not likes the digital alternative could be that normally we LP lovers fine tunned our room/system to this specific alternative. Digital performs way different and is an alternative where the room/system overall " errors " can’t be hidding through its low distortions levels . The full distortions levels in the LP alternatives could hide those room/system overall set up " errors ". >>>>I’d say that entire paragraph is probably false. I humbly submit the proposition that subjective experience is just as valid as measurements, as evidence in a debate, perhaps even more valid. If the thing that measures better doesn’t sound better maybe you’re measuring the wrong parameter. Once the myth of Total Harmonic Distortion THD was revealed 40 years ago measurements as an enterprise has been on a steady decline. ↘️ But I’m not saying all measurements are irrelevant or of no value. For example, mapping out the room acoustic anomalies is quite important. Otherwise how can you know where the room treatments are supposed to go? |
Dear @roberttdid : """ 24/192 digital in it’s pure form, has far more "information" than is possible by any measure on 15ips tape, and way more than vinyl. When you strip away what happens in mixing and mastering and just look at what the format is capable of, 24/192 digital is unmatched, and 24/96 is not too far behind for practical purposes. Vinyl definitely colors what passes through, and even tape will create colorations. Digital is pure, it’s detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people. Musicians say it sounds truest to what they hear coming from the instrument, b....""" All those was already proved in this thread and many other with facts, measures and several objective links with information that gives absolute certainty to those facts/measures. Exist no doubt about, even many of those facts are only just a little of common sense. Dear @mikelavigne unfortunatelly you continue talking/posting information with deep foundation on subjectivity where unfortunatelly you can’t prove in anyway all what you said about, just can’t do it you or any one else: impossible. Subjectivity is not a true/real fact it is not like 2+2=4 . Founded in subjectivity point of views for you that 2+2 can be 4 but other gentleman can be 3 0r 5 because subjectivity is not universal as ovjectivity. Subjectivity is way personal and can’t be proved with true facts. It’s really pity that all those audiophiles that die for analog and that post in Agon and other forums in this same main subject leave you here alone, I can say a shame of all them. You know that I value your opinion but here I think that we need a little of objectivity and not try to look things with no biased attitude. Mike, Robert posted: "" Vinyl definitely colors what passes through...""" Vinyl not only color everything that pass through due to its inherent high developed distortions during recording and playback process but not only that: you said that digital is missing information when the LP alternative not even can pick up the recorded information from the groove LP surface modulations. Not only lost a lot of information not even can pick-up in accurate way the overall information ! !. I already said this in different way of what Robert posted: " Digital is pure, it’s detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people... " Absolutely rigth, Mike you don’t like the " raw " reality when digital is truer to the recording that any LP recording. Digital is way nearer than the LP as how nearfield live MUSIC sounds, this nearfield live MUSIC sounds ( at its real live SPL. ) is what the recording microphones pick up and these mics are at nearfield. So why want we to listen at our homes something way way different as the LP/tape experiences?, why? . I can understand that that is what you like to hear because is what your brain and mine are acustom to but you and me are wrong about. You linked twice that LP recording that proves nothing against digital it does not matters that we listen it or compare at your place. You are an experienced audiophile and a wise gentleman and I don’t want that you accept here that digital is truer to the recording that is already proved. What I insist again to you is that use your " unbiased " common sense. The whole dialogue in this thread is not for find out who are the winners because at the end here there are not winners or loosers but all of we , including you, are winners because one way or the other all of we are learning something even if we don’t agree with. Those @djones51 links here and elsewhere are a lesson for me as many other of the links in this specific subject and he posted: """ I'm content being a non-audiophile I never expect recorded music to sound like live events only what was recorded. """ That should be the main target for any true audiophile. Other importan reason why could not likes the digital alternative could be that normally we LP lovers fine tunned our room/system to this specific alternative. Digital performs way different and is an alternative where the room/system overall " errors " can’t be hidding through its low distortions levels . The full distortions levels in the LP alternatives could hide those room/system overall set up " errors ". Btw, truer to the recording is the nearest we can stay to nerafield live MUSIC performance levels. This means: digital alternative. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
