Why should one medium sound better than another?

[VinylRob]

><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>‏

Ah, once again the validity of new math. We are once again dragged down to the lowest common denominator because we wouldn't want to offend anyone's sensibilities or their opportunity, although uninformed and oblivious, to have "personal choice". Why even bother to discriminate or sweat the details?

Do you have two good ears?

Can you hear a difference?
(if not, you are one of the lucky ones, believe it or not)

It's all about mind over matter, if you don't mind, it doesn't matter!

But for me it does, even modest analog trumps excellent digital and one can argue the details somewhere else because I would rather listen to music than try to convince someone to trust their ears over their convoluted logic. Not to mention vacuum tubes over semi-conductors or horns over cones and panels. Have I p'ssed somebody off yet?

The truth is... whatever you care to believe.

Happy Listening, I hope

 

[JimInLhc]

Some thirty years ago, in the Audio Shoppe I owned and ran... full of very esoteric stuff, and some excellent "mid fi" as well...... There was a professionally made sign behind the desk I often occupied. It read:

I'd rather listen to the music I love on a transistor radio than sound effects on the finest equipment in this store.

People would read it, then continue discussing the reletive merits of Bedini vs. AR or Ohm vs. Kef, Fidelity Research vs Grado. Using largely sound effects to attempt to prove their points.

 

[titanstats]

*sigh* Seems like the OP was just musing about things, when a tired old discussion broke out...

I'd like to get a bunch of format absolutists over to my place, where I'd be the one switching the sources. We'd see who's so certain then...

Like Old said, "whatever floats your boat".

 

[Mr. Lin]

I pretty much agree with Pacific Stereo. If true to life adhearence to what was actually recorded, then some are just "better" than others.

You've got it Terry, and I think that's what some are missing here by arguing that there's no point in debating this because it all comes down to taste. If we're discussing high fidelity, transparency to the source, and a true life-like reproduction (if the source can in fact provide it), it's simply incorrect to claim that mp3 is better than vinyl, CD, etc. Yes there are exceptions depending upon the source recording and the equipment used, but those things aside, it's not really a comparison.

If you like mp3 files better than SACD, for example, there's no arguing with that because it's subjective. Transparency to the source is not subjective, it is or it isn't, to varying degrees.

Even though I seem to repeat my overall stance on this topic every week here, since I'm still taking part in the discussion I'll say it again: Most formats have a lot to offer, all have their strong and weak points, and it's highly advisable to enjoy them all for what they're worth.

 

[Mr. Lin]

*sigh* Seems like the OP was just musing about things, when a tired old discussion broke out...

To be fair, he was musing about the very "tired old discussion" to which you refer. This being a discussion board, it was by default an invitation to chime in on the topic.

 

[Old_Tech]

Vinyl, acetate, tape of all sorts, CDs, mp3s, etc... I go on the record saying that no one is "better" than the others. What ever floats your boat in audio enjoyment--do it. And let others do as they like.

Further debate on this to my way of thinking is totally meaningless.

I guess in my way of thinking its how I am feeling and the music I'm hearing that does it for me. Some nights I may want to hear a CD of some performance or another then another night I may throw on an album just to hear that sound again then other nights the show on FM is out of this world. If my system plays it all well to my ears I am content.

There are many who are endlessly searching for the right sound I guess and that is what they love doing. I need to relax.

 

[niklasthedol]

I once had a stereo on my motorcycle.
For that purpose, if it was today, I would maybe prefer MP3 or Flac or other convinient digital format.
But would I pick it for the quality of sound when I'm on a bike?
Would I pick the music format in myn car for the reason of quality?
Nope.

I would in my home at my preference set-up and there I prefer Open Reel Master recordings.
For the quality of sound.

"dolph"

 

[bluesky]

I hear odious comparisons of one medium versus another on the forum. One favors vinyl while another favors another medium for listening to music.

I listen to most of the media available to me, and convert most of it to digital mp3, as I find it convenient in such format to hear in my car indash--as my car is where I find myself spending most of my "idle" time.

IMHO 'taint one really better than the other--except that they have different flavors.

I like most media as it seems to be convenient.

If some like to listen to iPods, and they truly enjoy what they hear, I say let them go at it. I don't personally, but far be it for me to condemn them for doing so.

I have a good system in my Mercedes sedan, but it isn't worth a cent to drive on New England winter roads around here, so I drive a Honda CRV.

And darned if the audio setup with a Poineer indash in that car doesn't meet the mark--it sounds pretty darned good.

Some day I'll get the old stereo here going again (not a hot priority at this point) but in the meantime the car stereos will probably do, as that's where I spend a good chunk of my time lately--driving a car.

Vinyl, acetate, tape of all sorts, CDs, mp3s, etc... I go on the record saying that no one is "better" than the others. What ever floats your boat in audio enjoyment--do it. And let others do as they like.

Further debate on this to my way of thinking is totally meaningless.

If I had a nice Mercedes...I'd get one of those 'very early "Vintage under the dashboard mounted" LP Record Players'!! :>)

 

[JimInLhc]

Heart was hurtin this afternoon... (literally chest pains), I chewed my asprin and switched on the DC-300A. Then put on Karen Carpenters Superstar, then Rainey Days and Mondays... then all 20 off the first album, CD of course.

Heart settled down nicely so I switched to Dreamboat Annie and I'm ready for tomorrow. Content over Format. I have MP3's on SD for the Car, Ditto burned a few MP3 disks. I own 3000 vinyl albums, most in storage, and a thousand or more cd's. I listen to the CD's because they are the easiest to use and can be stored in my music area. I love the Music of my life. Music is memories. Music is life to me now.

I hope when I pass I'll be listening to Pet Sounds in my living room, in Fabulous Mono, the way Brian wanted it.

 

[GOYA]

Tapes lose fidelity by being reproduced at slower speeds, and also through generational decline.

For clarity, perhaps it would be better to say a tape recorded to play back at slower speeds has lower fidelity. Tapes reproduced at slower speeds retain more fidelity than those utilizing a high speed transfer process.

Also, it should be stated that mastering for vinyl is going to be different than mastering for a tape or digital medium due to the mechanical limitations of the vinyl medium.

 

[wizargoz]

Again, this old debate.

It's not the MEDIA- it's the SOURCE. If the media replays the source material well as originally recorded, it doesn't matter whether it's tape, digital, vinyl etc. I understand the science behind the sonics, but a badly mastered LP still plays badly- even on a $10k table with a $2K cartridge.

Music mastered or remastered from original master tapes ripped to lossless MP3's can be a better source than a vinyl cut- and my A/B tests prove it. I have copies of both (Hendrix, Neil Young, AC/DC and many others), and the remastered MP3 sounds better- period.

Saying that, it's still a matter of personal taste, as always, and some here will still prefer the sound of the original vinyl. I understand that, too. I moved from vinyl and tape to digital because of convenience, when I realized that the source material in the digital world could match that of those other sources. I'm sure some may still disagree, but then some will also claim that original 78 jazz Lp's always sound better than stereo LP's of the same material...

 

[niklasthedol]

John,

It's my understanding that the Master Tapes of a live event, or of a studio recording are the product of the Mixing Engineer followed by the Mastering Engineers, that produces "the" tape that all subsequent media is derived from. Usually recorded @ 15 or 30 ips for the best fidelity possible, they are usually as good as you can get.

What some people forget is that with each generation of reproduction, the fidelity is diminished by a certain amount. Even old stampers used for manufacturing vinyl records are less capable of adhearing to the sound of the first records made from that stamper when it was new.
Tapes lose fidelity by being reproduced at slower speeds, and also through generational decline.

There are other factors as well, like the slew rate of the recording electronics. Glenn White, who used to record the Seattle Symphony Orchestra years ago, would make all his duplicate tapes in reverse (yes, the Nagra recorders allowed you to do this!) because, as an example, the intial attack of say, a piano string being struck by the hammer would require an immediate and immense pulse (slew rate), followed by the decay of the note. By reproducing it in reverse, the decay would allow a ramping effect for the note, followed by a sudden cessation of the signal, which is, of course, no big deal for electronics to handle. This helps preserve the integrity of the original signal to some extent.

Winston Ma of First Impression Music once brought to the Pacific Northwest Audio Society a glass stamper of a cd that he produced, along with an actual cd made from that stamper. The glass master was just an order of magnitude better than the cd! Regardless of what the digital weenies want to believe, the actual production of a commercial cd is a mechanical act and that's where the problems occur. It goes a long way to explain why you can actually burn a copy of a cd that will be better than the original (if certain steps are taken).

I hope that this lends some clarity to a topic that is very complex and greatly misunderstood. I'm certainly no expert, but I've been around for a long time, so even a dummy like me tends to pick up bits and pieces along the way.

Best Regards,
TerryO

Scientific research made by BBC, Danish state radio DR, Swedish state radio SR and some other very well respected radio stations, showed that tape was the media with the best longevity, keeping the highest quality of sound throughout the years of storage.

Furthermore, tape is also credited as being the highest quality of sound from the very beginning when the recording has been made.

Of course, this demands a skilled Tape Operator, a skilled stage set-up, ditto calibration etc.

When you start talk about a copy being better than an original, I have to ask about definition of sound quality and the term "better".

"dolph"

 

[TerryO]

For clarity, perhaps it would be better to say a tape recorded to play back at slower speeds has lower fidelity. Tapes reproduced at slower speeds retain more fidelity than those utilizing a high speed transfer process.

Also, it should be stated that mastering for vinyl is going to be different than mastering for a tape or digital medium due to the mechanical limitations of the vinyl medium.

You could also say that the limitations of the digital media also requires some different techniques...if it is supposed to sound good.

FYI: Tapes reproduced in reverse allow even higher fidelity, but that's an old trick that the good recording engineers often used.

[Edit] I see what you mean, you're speaking about the speed of the transfer on a one to one basis. I merely meant that a recording at 15 or 30 ips will not be as good when transferred to a 7.5 ips tape (which many of the commercially available tapes were).

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[TerryO]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SNIP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you start talk about a copy being better than an original, I have to ask about definition of sound quality and the term "better".

"dolph"

Dolph,

You don't get out much, do you?

Everybody has been doing this for so long, that I would have though you'd have already gotten on board. The internet has numerous forums that discuss this and other aspects of digital transfer, the limitations and advanced techniques for improved copies.

As for the definitions of "sound quality" and "better", I use Webster's New World Dictionary.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[bluesky]

If you 'can't hear the difference' between LPs (analog) and CDs (digital), then digital will be just fine for you.

Actually I was reading an article that basically said: "now-a-days the younger generation actually 'prefers' the sound of CDs over LPs". Unreal.

Different strokes for different folks. It takes all kinds to make the world go around. I'll take analog anyday. It has the full spectrum of sound and the emotional feeling/content which is totally lost on digital CDs.

But for most people CDs are the way to go. Easy, they sound good enough, and no wow and flutter, snap, crackle, or pops. Actually, for most people, CDs probably 'do' sound better because of their playback equipment. And TTs are expensive and cartridges do cost a bit of cash, and you do have to adjust em...But if you want the 'as close to the real sound as you can get', the real warm and alive 'live sound', or the real 'studio sound' as recorded or at least as close as you can get to that human interaction with feeling, full spectrum of sound, and warmpth, then LPs (analog) are the only way to go. My hearing isn't that great and I can really 'feel and hear the difference". To me...there is no comparison. I can easily get into LPs but just can't really get into CDs at all really, unless they are MFSL or some of the other 'specially recorded or mastered' cds. Then they sound good, but LPs do sound a lot more delicious.

I have 600 CDs and 35%+ are collector's stuff, and I'm glad I have them, and they don't owe me anything, I've used em. But I 'don't buy any CDs anymore', even used. It's totally LPs for me. I love the 'FEELING and the total sound', not just some sound. But that's just me and a few other of us who really hear what vinyl LPs really have to offer. "Feeling" with a full spectrum of sound.

To say it in another way: Remember when you used to play Led Zeppelin.

1. In the digital format you say: "That sounded really nice. What's the next CD?"
2. In the analog format you don't say anything, after the LP finishes 'you feel like goin wild', goin downtown, and doin some partying! Straight up.

That's the difference to me anyway. Something 'is' goin on there. "It's undeniable". There is a difference. FEELING in the gut. There just isn't any feeling with CDs, digital, it's flat and stale, where LPs are alive. Some CDs really do sound good, but no action. Nothing is happening. Ya don't feel it in your 'SOUL'.

Seems the newer generation isn't into audiophile (I'm really not either) but I am into real feeling and sound quality. Seems like that is something in the past. I'd be willing to bet that the younger generation doesn't even know what good sound even is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously. I don't think they have a clue to sound quality, by in large. I know my nephew would much rather listen to his iPod than a real sound system. Who knows???

It's all good. Just personal preference for sound I guess.

I do know one thing about digital. Quality CD players really do make a big difference in digital playback sound. I just bought a new NAD C-515BEE and it sounds way better than I ever expected it would sound. Kinda blew me away. CD players have come a long way since I bought my last 2, and one of em was a quality Denon. The NAD walks all over it.

So to answer the question: 'Why should one medium sound better than another'?

Just gave you my thoughts on recorded medium. I vote 'analog' on a 'real stereo system' with a correctly adjusted quality TT with a nice $250 cartridge.

 

[niklasthedol]

Dolph,

You don't get out much, do you?

Everybody has been doing this for so long, that I would have though you'd have already gotten on board. The internet has numerous forums that discuss this and other aspects of digital transfer, the limitations and advanced techniques for improved copies.

As for the definitions of "sound quality" and "better", I use Webster's New World Dictionary.

Best Regards,
TerryO

Well..................In that case you're obviously and simply wrong.
That's not a surprise.

And: OH YEAH; I do get out a lot.

"dolph"

 

[hpsenicka]

Well..................In that case you're obviously and simply wrong.
That's not a surprise.

And: OH YEAH; I do get out a lot.

"dolph"

Your heavily opinionated response sure isn't a surprise! :thumbsdn:

 

[RayW]

Well..................In that case you're obviously and simply wrong.

In an analog storage medium that would probably be true. However, in a digital storage scheme it is possible. Think about it. The stamper (production CDs are stamped, not burned) gets a little warn and starts producing errors in the CDs being made. A CD player has error correction that keeps the CD playable but doesn't fix everything. With a better error correction scheme in making a copy you could restore the signal to what it was supposed to be thereby having a copy that is better than the original.

 

[mrt2]

...But if you want the 'as close to the real sound as you can get', the real warm and alive 'live sound', or the real 'studio sound' as recorded or at least as close as you can get to that human interaction with feeling, full spectrum of sound, and warmpth, then LPs (analog) are the only way to go. My hearing isn't that great and I can really 'feel and hear the difference". To me...there is no comparison. I can easily get into LPs but just can't really get into CDs at all really, unless they are MFSL or some of the other 'specially recorded or mastered' cds. Then they sound good, but LPs do sound a lot more delicious.

"Feeling" with a full spectrum of sound.

To say it in another way: Remember when you used to play Led Zeppelin.

1. In the digital format you say: "That sounded really nice. What's the next CD?"
2. In the analog format you don't say anything, after the LP finishes 'you feel like goin wild', goin downtown, and doin some partying! Straight up.

That's the difference to me anyway. Something 'is' goin on there. "It's undeniable". There is a difference. FEELING in the gut. .

If I got that sort of "feeling" from lps, I would spin records a whole lot more than I do. You are describing something completely subjective, so your whole point about it being undeniable is debatable.

My experience is different. I have concluded that vinyl and cd are just storage mediums, nothing more. And, there is nothing magical about either. Both can sound good or bad, but neither is perfect. If the mere fact of analog made a format better, one would expect more people listening to Reel to Reel, cassettes and 8 tracks as well.

I have spun records on everything from cheap BSR tables, to mediocre 80s era JVCs and Technics, to better quality Regas and ProJects, to really good Linns, Sotas, Nottinghams and Acoustic Solid. You know what? An lp still sounds like an lp. A beat up old mid to late 70s pressing of Zeppelin still sounds like crap, even on a $10,000 turntable, playing into a $5,000 phono stage. I have heard it. Even with a great pressing, which I have also heard, the music is good, but it still sounds like an lp to me. It never quite puts you in the studio with the musicians.

As luck would have it, I have been listening to some Led Zeppelin recently on cd, mostly the 80s era reissues mastered by Barry Diament. You know what? It sounds pretty much as I remember the old lps, except for the lack of surface noise and the inner groove distortion. Nice, early to mid 70s studio sound.

 

[JonL]

....

To say it in another way: Remember when you used to play Led Zeppelin.

1. In the digital format you say: "That sounded really nice. What's the next CD?"
2. In the analog format you don't say anything, after the LP finishes 'you feel like goin wild', goin downtown, and doin some partying! Straight up.

That's the difference to me anyway. Something 'is' goin on there. "It's undeniable". There is a difference. FEELING in the gut. There just isn't any feeling with CDs, digital, it's flat and stale, where LPs are alive. Some CDs really do sound good, but no action. Nothing is happening. Ya don't feel it in your 'SOUL'.

....

It's all good. Just personal preference for sound I guess.

....

If I got that sort of "feeling" from lps, I would spin records a whole lot more than I do. You are describing something completely subjective, so your whole point about it being undeniable is debatable.

I agree with both of you. My experience with LPs vs. CDs is similar to Bluesky's. I find that when I play a CD, I get antsy for it to be over after a few songs. When I play an LP, I get engaged in the music and I'm disappointed when it comes to an end. I agree, though, that this is completely subjective and therefore not undeniable except for me in my room with my rig and my ears.

There are a tremendous number of AKers who's opinions I respect who feel that with the proper digital front end CDs can provide the same (or better) experience as LPs. I acknowledge that my digital front end is sub par and I'd like to improve it so that my CDs do something more than gather dust.