Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

.

Orignally there was a disagreement as to whether the playing of a live hohner marine band harmonica in one's home is acceptable to use as a reference for determining the quality of a systems playback of the same instrument. Basically it was argued that it couldn't be used because Bob dylan playing his and one playing there's alters the timbre because of a couple of things.

1. Each man/ women has a different body structure their "personal timbre"
2. playing style or "tone" is different

Now, i think it becomes important to ask..."how much can 1 and 2 alter the timbre of a marine band harmonica?"

That is...To what DEGREE is it changed? to what DEGREE can it be changed by 1 and 2 ?

Very little . Every time i have heard another player using this brand harmonica live, it has always sounded exactly the same. Using ones "ear" one can distinguish the players style and then using ones 'ear' you can listen for the timbre of that instrument.(the attributes of that brand harmonica that make it distinct both from other harmonicas and other instruments in general)

Imagine you have a 1000 litres of pure water and add 1 drop of chlorine to it and mix. You taste the water "before and after". As the drop of water is to changing 1000 litres of pure water into something else so is a person's "personal timbre" to changing the timbre of the harmonica. Whatever IS the true ratio, (2 drops, 10 drops of water?) who knows, but the point is...whatever it is...its negligible.

So, though we have it seems generally agreed a persons 'personal timbre' does in fact have some influence we need to be CAREFUL we don't go TOO FAR in our understanding of just how much it can change the inherent timbre of a hohner harmonica.

Personal timbre in regard to "human voice" can vary in vast degrees (that's a different story) but the difference between 10 different men playing the same hohner will be minuscule and indistinguishable. (again, i am not talking about playing styles.)(playing styles obviously can vary to massive degrees!)

I love what was said about differing guitar tones because i am familiar with all those things mentioned. I am a proud owner of a '86 reissue of a '57 fender stratocaster built in corona california. Which replaced a japanese 72 reissue telecaster. These two have their similarities and their differences in tone.

As i think the story goes at some point fender changed hands and the plant was move from fullerton to corona or vice versa . The '84 '57 fullerton reissue is the one that gets alot/more... of attention but when i once asked a guy if the tone would be different from mine, he said... no. Well, no two guitars in reality are identical simply because they are not the same guitar.

This begs the question..."will all hohner marine band harmonica's made in the same plant with the same parts, with the same pool of "shift workers" , in the same month/year sound the same?" Yes and no.

Yes, in that there are quality control measures put in place to assure that before a harmonica leaves for market it represents a certain set of standards the company champions. No, in the sense that the odd one might slip through quality control with some kind of problem and no in the sense that if you had the right instruments to measure and identify certain parameters you could distinguish from among them. I would say that there is more consistency in regard to timbre between marine band harmonicas then fender guitars probably because the fender uses much more wood and that wood plays a pretty big part in imparting the final sound of a fender. Of course there are more factors then just its choice of woods, for example, guitars have more parts than a harmonica and therefore this introduces more potential for variability of tone.

So, if someone should choose to use a brand of harmonica as a reference test he can have great confidence in this kind of testing because there is a high degree of manufacturing consistency from one harmonica to the next within the same brand and production run and the differences between those never makes that brand harmonica indistinguishable from other brands.

Switching gears.

In regard to resolution....

I have strived to build a system that will reproduce timbres PERFECTLY. That is my goal. Since as i mentioned.... it is one of my highest audiophile values. (second being dynamics/speed).

If some want TOO, to make this their goal they will realize that at some point he will need to make a decision. Do you want most of your records and cds to sound generally pretty darn good? or do you want to REALLY go for PERFECT timbre(resolving the extremely fine nuances of timbre) and therefore drop the percentages of the former so that now only 4 percent sound STELLAR , many sound ok and some sound terrible/poor?

RE***The deeper you get in resolution, the more you can recognize real from recorded, which doesn't takeaway any of the fun of listening to music.***

Yes AND no! In my experience...the higher the resolution the more you CANT recognize real from recorded which adds to the emotional experience and stuns/shocks you. So, yes the high resolution does this to poor recordings but with some recordings hifidelity and "resolution" is doing its job making things sound more and more real!"

The goal should be to look for components that are high resolution and make no sacrifice in regard to timbrel fidelity. And...that...in some instances is a realistic and achievable goal. Some playback should in fact sound real. The percentages and instances when it occurs should be going up NOT down even if the instances are rare. There was a time when NO aspect of my playback sounded REAL, now it happens in some cases.

How can someone say..."i have the best/highest resolution but nothing sounds real???" Whoever is having this experience...i must conclude...DOESN'T in fact HAVE the best resolution?

I agree with the joke.... "my system is so good, so resolving all my records are unlistenable!" Which implies the person has somewhere somehow started to head the wrong direction and needs to re asses things.

RE***Like I said it's a paradox,we were all brainwashed into thinking it should sound like the real thing in real time and space, when in reality, if it sounds like that in your system, it can't be real.****

Why not? Do you KNOW it can't sound real or do you BELIEVE it can sound real?

RE***If a system has the resolution to let you hear the clues and studio artifacts, then you are that much closer to recreating the way the music was recorded at the time and in that space.
You are getting a better reproduction of the reproduction, warts and all.****

Agreed and that is good but only so long as the "warts" sound real since warts in our natural environment have a natural character all their own but if a system produces those warts WITH artifacts attached to them then that needs to be addressed. I have no qualms with warts so long as they sound real.

There's something i'd like to put out there for people to discuss if they should choose to do so. It is about "cooking up" a sound so as to mimic real instruments. Here's my hypothesis.

It is possible to ADD! attributes to your stereo playback of an instruments timbrel character (after the fact) that:

1. Were unable, failed... to be captured for whatever reason by the "recording system"
and that
2.Despite no. 1 it is possible to REINTRODUCE that fine attribute by the "art of system building"
so that
3. The timbre of an instrument can sound indistinguishable in (some cases)from real.

To use the analogy of "cooking". Suppose you are making a tomato sauce with non organic tomatoes but you buy and taste a organic tomato and that is your reference for what a natural organic tomato tastes like. Now, the non organic tomato is missing some of the organic tomatoes attributes but they do in fact share many similarities in other aspects of what constitutes the taste of an organic tomato. There are other attributes in an organic tomato but one of the most consistent faults of regular tomatoes is the lack of that sunshine sweetness that occurs from proper ripening. I noticed if i use white sugar it doesn't fool me into thinking i used organic tomatoes in my sauce but if i use a teaspoon of honey... it does. Now, when i use honey i am getting closer to a real organic tomato taste but even with that ingredient i can make the error of not using enough or too much honey it is then that the tomatoes "timbre" (smile) will be "inaccurate and "not true"".

Analogies at some point always break down but i think it's still a valuable analogy. If i know and can source the sound of a real instrument and i can use it along with exotic materials and designs at our disposal in hifidom perhaps i can push and pull the timbres to "lock in" on the sound of trumpet or harmonica during my stereo playback of those instruments, irregardless of the failures of the initial recording process.

For example, What if the image size of the performers vocals had become too large and unnatural (not like real life) because of something in the chain from "recording to pressing" ....can't i control image size in a whole list of different ways available to me by system building? Yes, i would argue, you can.

What if a hohner was recorded too thin (or comes across as sounding too thin)? What if it comes across as sounding like it has tin reeds instead of the shiny smooth stainless steel reeds? or like a rubber comb harmonica instead of a plastic comb harmonica? What if the harmonica comes across as being 1foot wide instead of a few inches wide? I argue this can be fixed to sound as a real harmonica sounds in every single regard.

Of course in low resolution, highly distorted, colored, slow systems they won't stand a chance in imitating a real harmonica. What about in class A where the entire signal is amplified (less manipulation), in short simple circuits using good silver conductors, in quiet, neutral, low distortion speakers that use fast powerful neo magnets and no crossover, carts that use neo magnets and solid gold, etc, etc, then, there stands a much better chance to realize the goal of impeccable timbres.

Synergy. There is no clearly defined standard by which all audiophile use to guarantee synergy. There is a general understanding of what generally will work and generally we are right about it and get general results but no one knows where synergy will be found at least at the level at which i am talking about it. If i am looking for "a little of this but not too much of that" can i ever know if x wire or Z component will deliver in the quantity and quality that i am looking to it for, with nothing more or nothing less added or subtracted? For the most part audiophiles are clueless in regard to the outcome as to how exactly the fine details of one component will mix with another and what that change will bring. All they can do is try it and see and then they will know. I think i will be waiting for a long time to see a 40 page book titled "Synergy: Where and how to find it" So,with this qualifier, it is in this sense that i say with regard to synergy "it's better to be lucky than good". The person who plays the big lotteries alot still never wins but it might happen that the person who plays rarely just happens to win the jackpot.

It is because of this that i often wonder just exactly how some peoples systems sound since there are so many out there that are very different and we are all quite isolated from them and ignorant as to how they sound and what is possible and what is not .

.

.

(i left two posts today)

High resolution and timbre.

Between High resolution and portrayal of instrumental timbres.

You can have any one of these combos

1.Low resolution, very good timbre
2.low resoution, poor timbre
3,high resolution, poor timbre
4,high resolution, very good timbre

It does not follow in every case that high resolution necessarily must equal poor portrayal of timbre.

It is a question not just of how high the resolution (the amount of info it can read) but just as important, is HOW that info is portrayed in RELATION to a live instruments timbre.

Play any fine instrument live. This is the embodiment of "lots of info and faithfulness to timbre" (well, there's nothing to be faithful to since it the real thing)

It is wrong, i think if anyone should argue that.... as resolution goes up portrayal of timbres must go down and therefore things necessarily must sound less real.

As long as a systems high "information" retrieval is FAITHFUL to "timbre" at the same time... there is no paradox necessary or at least there is no paradox on CERTAIN recordings that find synergy with what the rest of the system is doing.

What i suspect is happening then in systems that are pushing state of the art in resolution is...that they are operating within a narrower and narrower "range" ...increasing the demand on recordings that aren't "sympathetic" to that narrow range and when the unique signature of how that system was put together finds the right synergy with a recording that has a certain "bent" to it, shazaam, wow, this sounds amazing! But the double edged sword is (with that very narrowed range it is operating in) it has now "alienated" many other records in the collection from sounding good because there are so many variables between different "recordings."

Hmm? Maybe i'll have to become one of those guys who goes back to 'midfi' or vintage because of this. There's a very compelling argument that could be made to justify doing so.

Maybe i should have kept my marantz 2270 and 2325's and just be done with it. What's so great about great timbre? Is it really worth all that money just to acquire it on a few recordings? How many times do we keep walking when we pass a live street busker, or i've seen people fall asleep at live classical music events? (haha) (just thinking aloud)

Maybe the best is to find some middle ground.

Which is better? 1.to have a few things in your collection sound sublime and the rest sound mediocre OR 2.to just have most sounding pretty darn good?

If i did go back to midfi i know that i would be going from... SOME things sound real ...to... nothing ever sounds indistinguishable from real.

But maybe that would be ok to me, since as i've stated before music is much more than JUST having perfect instrument timbre.

.

Vertigo I am glad you have picked up on some of my thoughts, and are beginning to understand what I must be poor at explaining.

I did say that the less resolving, mid fi systems and most vintage gear, have a way of sounding more "musical" to the folks who like to use that term.

I try not to use that term,it means something different to everyone with a system.

Read some of the non professional takes on most high end gear and you will see that a lot of folks don't like the sound of high resolving gear no matter how much synergy there is.Too much detail, fatiguing, non musical, are some descriptors that I've read.
Give them an old 12 inch driver in an untuned particle board box and Sansui receiver and they have found their musical nirvana.
And good for them if that's what makes them happy.
But sorry that's not my idea of a good time.
If it doesn't sound "musical" or nice to their ears, then it's not very good.
Musical to them and not musical to me,and vice versa.

We both know what we like, and settle with the sound that we like.

My preference is to enjoy at 100% the recordings that are well recorded and sound that way thru my system.
I am perfectly content with the fact that this may only account for 40% of my recorded collection.
I would rather be content enjoying the differences than never being able to know that there are any.
Or in other words, I would rather enjoy a small percentage of my collection to the max than to enjoy my whole collection at a lesser degree.

In other words again, I don't want a system that drags the good recordings down to the level of the poor ones.

There's no pleasure in that for me.

I will still enjoy the musicianship and the music on all the recordings, just not the "sound" of those recordings.

And this is why I can't enjoy systems that are low in resolution .To me they make everything sound the same,and I know that's not how it is in the real world.

If the system makes some recordings less pleasurable because for the first time the music is being heard thru a system that isn't rolled off in the treble or seriously compromised in high frequency retrieval,then it's not the fault of the gear.

The gear is only telling it like it is.
So what is more realistic?
A system capable of distinguishing between recordings and studios or a system that homogenizes everything with no distinction between well recorded music and poorly recorded music?

Again, check out Harley's take on the sound of the early jazz recordings or even some of Chet Atkins early mono lps and tell me they don't sound more "real"(for want of a better term)than most everything recorded in the last few years,using analog or digital.

Until a person hears how uncluttered and unprocessed this music is,they don't have a clue about what I or Harley is talking about.

I once had a debate on this forum with someone who flat out told me I didn't know what I was talking about, because I said that early 50's and 60's jazz lps sounded more "real" than most of todays recordings did.
He said we have progressed and a lot of advancements have been made.
I stated, that the old engineers were masters at capturing the sound of the instruments in the room they were played in more accurately because they didn't rely on audio processing and gimmicks and "fixing it in the mix" or even post production work on pro tools.

So when I say that my friend's system reveals these differences even more than mine does,it doesn't mean that the music is any less enjoyable thru his system.
In fact I enjoy it more.Because it gives me a clearer picture about what is going on behind the scenes.

It only demonstarates how many differences there are in recordings, how much the quality varies from studio to studio, label to label and in the amount of processing some recordings get.
It's very easy to distinguish between purist recordings and the ones that aren't.

In other words, his system and most of the better system pull this off, but it's not the perfect cup of tea for the folks who want to have a nice warm and fuzzy relationship with their music and hifi system.

So like I"ve mentioned, there are two ways at the least for folks to persue this hobby.

It's often mentioned that folks who invest large sums of money in the gear are just gear heads.
Partly true, guilty as charged.

But it's all for a good cause.The ultimate enjoyment of recorded music.Which for me is the enjoyment of hearing the trail of reverb at the end of a Dylan harmonica recording that just isn't there in my room or any place else, outside of that studio.

When you are a musician, you can give up and just play the music and forget about the quality, because you know it's not real.
Or you can strive to build a system that at least gets you close enough to "real" to know it when it ain't.

Lacee, my 60's dylan first pressings are some of the most impressive recordings i have in my small collection. I have heard many "incarnations" of the playback of these same lps... change... as my system goes through it's changes. I have a record in my head of the several different ways i have these lps sound and can compare them with each other. Some were more romantic and colored and some were more neutral and clinical.

RE***I once had a debate on this forum with someone who flat out told me I didn't know what I was talking about, because I said that early 50's and 60's jazz lps sounded more "real" than most of todays recordings did.
He said we have progressed and a lot of advancements have been made.***

I'm not surprised. From the little experience i have in this area i would probably take your side and agree with what you have said. It seems today everything is overproduced and over processed? I'd like to see a return to simple analog tape recordings, with sparse tracks and limited manipulation.

I think at the heart of the problem of "hifi" is the myriad of variables that exist both from a recording standpoint and from a playback standpoint.

That is...you can't build a system that will play all the types of recordings that exist out there equally well? You can dial in your system for certain types of recordings but then once you've done that you fail to serve the other types of recordings.In other words, just when you've set the ball up and are ready to kick, you look up and the goal posts have been moved! So basically, it seems that "hifidelity" is a futile exercise in so far as if one sets their goal to have all their software sound perfect.

When i started out, i was very naive, romantic and idealistic.

Lately, as i have reflected, i have almost come to the conclusion that the term "hi fidelity" was probably a term originally coined simply to sell the "snake oil" of "great sound". Which essentially means that they have hung the billboard of "hifidelity"... when the stuff in the bottle has no power to heal! And we all bought some! (I laugh)

Sorry if my outlook is a bit bleak but it only comes on the heals of that romantic idealist that was full of hopes of an attainable ideal and who has become to some degree disappointed! Where i have arrived and where i set out to go are not the same thing.

But...I can't complain. Some of the promises of hifi are being delivered, i guess, i just need to lower my expectations.

Maybe the ideal is to build the system that is between midfi plus and below state of the art.

I think i might put together a system that is just a glorified getto blaster. (smile)

Don't give up Vertigo,and please don't regress.

It's is a bit of a shock when you hear a really superb system and discovering how great all the music sounds,but that the system is revealing all the flaws as well.

But this is the direction that I want to travel further towards, and as I've said ,doing things about the power to my gear and treating the room, really has gotten me closer.

Not closer to reality, but closer to the reality of the recording and playback process which if you really think about it is reality.

It's all an illusion, but the better the illusion, the more I enjoy the music.

Somefolks don't enjoy this type of realism, and rather enjoy systems that cover up some of the nasties of the recording chain.

To me if it sounds like a bad recording , then that is what it is,I don't want it to mask the impefections,because if a system is good at that it is also masking great recordings.

It's like grading all the smart kids and the less smart ones, lumping them altogether and giving the class one big C .

If I have some grade A recordings I don't want them reproduced at a C level.

Sure everything sounds alright, just like all the kids get a pass, but is that the way we want things to be?

It's just breeding mediocrity, and sorry for the preaching, but this seems to be where society is at.

But why settle for it if you don't have to.

Assembling a truthful system isn't hard or even that expensive to do, if you pay attention to a few things that some folks describe as snake oil.

Well snake oil to them is nirvana to me, if it gets me a system that is revealing of everything there is about a piece of recorded music.

I'll take my music, warts and all, over music that's rendered all sweet and gooey.

But that's they way I like it, it's not the way you or anyone else has to like it.

And from all that I've been reading on forums and in reviews, it seems the goo is the more popular.

I guess I am a coffee black type and the others are triple triple lovers.

In the end we are still listening to the music and that's what matters,no matter what it's played back thru.