Why should one medium sound better than another?

[mrt2]

That really is the story and it was the language that we used when CD's came out. It was the brickwall filters that limited CD from that extra thing that vinyl seemed to have. I had heard most of the monster tables before I heard CD's and I knew they were not what had been claimed. They were a mainstream product directed by Sony and Phillips who lets face it have never been know to think outside the mass market appeal products.

I had thousands of albums so I continued to use vinyl plain and simple. The high end audio community worked night and day to erase TT's and vinyl form the face of the earth as the crowd had embraced the new medium. Flash forward to today and CD's sound very good I have a fantasitc collection of both vinyl and shiny discs and love them both.

I guess it boils down to context and what you've heard. Nik is right though about what the real problem was with CD's. The medium was released when it could satisfy the ears of the mainstream and not the audiophile. Had they waited and gone with a higher standard the death of vinyl would have been total and complete. I wish they had waited until an LP sounded like an 8 track player compared to a CDP. But it was about money and not sound. Sony was not interested in selling the medium. They wanted to sell the discs.

marc mc

As I recall, lp sales had already started to decline before the cd was released.

 

[marc mc]

As I recall, lp sales had already started to decline before the cd was released.

Agreed and that is why Sony was working so hard to have the CDP's launched. The reason tapes took off was people could take them in the car and discman..

The money is in software not the hardware. Sony also knew the success they had had with the Walkman would translate to the Discman.

Audiophiles have tunnel vision. We are the minority and this industry has always been driven by the mainstream. Not us! We take what the mainstream is doing and tweak it. We do not drive the ship. Do you think sound quailty in comparson to monster tables is what Sony/Phillips cared about? NO. They knew that thier CDP's would kick the crap out of the plastic crap tt's they had sold them a decade before and that they would last longer than the the tapes they had under the seats of their cars.

They want to resell you DSOM and The White Album!

marc mc

 

[Robint]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I listen to cd's, lp's, cassettes and as of Saturday 78's. I enjoy each one. In my case it doesn't matter what format I am using, each piece of equipment is out-putting an analogue signal. So the question is whether the analogue signal is different from tt's, cd, cassette decks etc? The analogue signal is amplified and outputted to the speakers by my receiver. So the second question is, how much does the amplifier color the sound?

 

[mrt2]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I listen to cd's, lp's, cassettes and as of Saturday 78's. I enjoy each one. In my case it doesn't matter what format I am using, each piece of equipment is out-putting an analogue signal. So the question is whether the analogue signal is different from tt's, cd, cassette decks etc? The analogue signal is amplified and outputted to the speakers by my receiver. So the second question is, how much does the amplifier color the sound?

With vinyl, there is that extra stage of amplification and that RIAA curve, so the quality of your phono stage does affect the sound.

 

[niklasthedol]

I will prevent any misinterpretation of my posts.

I use a lot of different media/sources.

I enjoy them all very much, each at their time.

FM, Cassette, 33 1/3 rpm LP, MD, DAT, PC, 1/2-track Open Reel, 24/96 & 24/192 Digital HD studio & portabel recorders, CD, DVD, DVD-A, HiFi-VCR, SACD, AM, Set-top box TV sound, 78 rpm records, 45 rpm records, EL-Cassette, 1/4 track open reel, 4-track open reel (Except I don't have that anymore but I have the tapes), DAB etc.

I am NOT against any media.
I am just realistic when stating that some media/sources potentially have better recording / playback sound quality.

"dolph"

 

[kevzep]

I will prevent any misinterpretation of my posts.

I use a lot of different media/sources.

I enjoy them all very much, each at their time.

FM, Cassette, 33 1/3 rpm LP, MD, DAT, PC, 1/2-track Open Reel, 24/96 & 24/192 Digital HD studio & portabel recorders, CD, DVD, DVD-A, HiFi-VCR, SACD, AM, Set-top box TV sound, 78 rpm records, 45 rpm records, EL-Cassette, 1/4 track open reel, 4-track open reel (Except I don't have that anymore but I have the tapes), DAB etc.

I am NOT against any media.
I am just realistic when stating that some media/sources potentially have better recording / playback sound quality.

"dolph"

Thats right, fair enough thats what this is all about.
Back to our discussion, I used to use TDK SAX cassettes alomost exclusivley.
I have a Pioneer F-950 which hasn't seen the light of day for more than twenty years................

 

[Mr. Lin]

, I used to use TDK SAX cassettes alomost exclusivley.

Those are my "bread and butter" tapes now, I stocked up on a huge supply of NOS versions (I guess they're all NOS now, huh?), and I'm always happy with the outcome.

It's fair enough to point out the limitations inherent in the Redbook CD format, but let's just keep in mind that the better CD players of today can get fantastic sound out of CDs. I think a lot of analog fans don't understand that.

 

[kevzep]

It's fair enough to point out the limitations inherent in the Redbook CD format, but let's just keep in mind that the better CD players of today can get fantastic sound out of CDs. I think a lot of analog fans don't understand that.

Absolutely, I would agree 100% with you on that one...............Im not so sure however, that the Redbook CD format is as limiting as a lot of people think.....

 

[niklasthedol]

Those are my "bread and butter" tapes now, I stocked up on a huge supply of NOS versions (I guess they're all NOS now, huh?), and I'm always happy with the outcome.

It's fair enough to point out the limitations inherent in the Redbook CD format, but let's just keep in mind that the better CD players of today can get fantastic sound out of CDs. I think a lot of analog fans don't understand that.

I was the one stating the limitations of the Redbook format in this thread but as you can see from above post, I am not really an analog fan.
I'm a fan of music and I'm a fan of great sound quality.

I don't think I lack the understanding you mention here.

I think a lot of people lack the understanding beyond the DIY tech-guy school book.

The understanding that there are more to it than dynamic and that quality of sound is not measurable.
The understanding that there are only a very few of an uncountable amount of parameters creating the wholeness of the sound quality.
The understanding that technology has not (yet) got to the point where units to link to these parameters are even thought about.

Of course this also makes it very much harder to explain what it is making one source/media sound that slightly tiny bit better than another.

And it's not getting easier when people have so different approach to judging good or less good sound quality. Some people even won't close that school book and admit that an experience of music, whether live or reproduced, is subjective.
All experiences are.

But let me start with two small parameters out of many that counts in, advocating the slightly better sound quality in tape compared to digital.

For one: The overtones, even though they up higher in frequency are weakened, indeed help us "feel" that this reproduction sound closer to the original (even though we sometimes have no idea how the original sounds).
This is in particular a Redbook problem as higher digital resolutions go higher in frequency.
BUT the fact that the cut off is abrubt is a problem even for higher resolution digital music.

And then: The lack of background noise in digital media is a complete misunderstanding.
This is part of the hunt for further dB in the dynamics.
But it is for sure not without compromises.
Within the background noise are a lot of very important information the human ear needs to "feel" the sound is natural.
No place, or at least no natural place, where people find themselves (they don't natural find themselves in a completely acoustic dead room) is without some amount of natural background noise.
And we are actually very good at hearing the small signals within this noise.
This is why we can hear an ambulance even though people are screaming and horns are honking, cars are driving, music is playing and your wife is babbling.

This very informative background noise are left out on digital media also leaving out some very important microdynamics.
This is when we on the best analog tape recordings "can hear the shoelaces of the 3rd violinist untie".
Same problem, leaving out microdynamics will hit the analog tape recording when non double ended NR are abused.
Dolby C, Dolby B, dbx, Dolby S, High Com etc. will all in someway kill the natural "feel" of the reproduced sound because the hunt for eliminating background noise in which we find some very important microdynamics giving us the "glacing on the cake".

Now tape hiss is NOT background noise. Neither is the tape decks mechanical or electrical noise.
But if there is ANY background noise in the source you are recording from, no matter if it is from an LP, FM, a mixer or directly from microphones, trying to eliminate that noise will also try to eliminate the natural "feel" of the recording.

This is where you, as a tape operator/sound engineer, has to evaluate what's most important.
And unfortunately most tape operators / sound engineers chose to eliminate the microdynamics.

There are much more to it but as I am busy planning my motorcycle trip over the Alps, I will have to rationalize my postings for the time being.

"dolph"

 

[kevzep]

I was the one stating the limitations of the Redbook format in this thread but as you can see from above post, I am not really an analog fan.
I'm a fan of music and I'm a fan of great sound quality.

I don't think I lack the understanding you mention here.

I think a lot of people lack the understanding beyond the DIY tech-guy school book.

The understanding that there are more to it than dynamic and that quality of sound is not measurable.
The understanding that there are only a very few of an uncountable amount of parameters creating the wholeness of the sound quality.
The understanding that technology has not (yet) got to the point where units to link to these parameters are even thought about.

Of course this also makes it very much harder to explain what it is making one source/media sound that slightly tiny bit better than another.

And it's not getting easier when people have so different approach to judging good or less good sound quality. Some people even won't close that school book and admit that an experience of music, whether live or reproduced, is subjective.
All experiences are.

But let me start with two small parameters out of many that counts in, advocating the slightly better sound quality in tape compared to digital.

For one: The overtones, even though they up higher in frequency are weakened, indeed help us "feel" that this reproduction sound closer to the original (even though we sometimes have no idea how the original sounds).
This is in particular a Redbook problem as higher digital resolutions go higher in frequency.
BUT the fact that the cut off is abrubt is a problem even for higher resolution digital music.

And then: The lack of background noise in digital media is a complete misunderstanding.
This is part of the hunt for further dB in the dynamics.
But it is for sure not without compromises.
Within the background noise are a lot of very important information the human ear needs to "feel" the sound is natural.
No place, or at least no natural place, where people find themselves (they don't natural find themselves in a completely acoustic dead room) is without some amount of natural background noise.
And we are actually very good at hearing the small signals within this noise.
This is why we can hear an ambulance even though people are screaming and horns are honking, cars are driving, music is playing and your wife is babbling.

This very informative background noise are left out on digital media also leaving out some very important microdynamics.
This is when we on the best analog tape recordings "can hear the shoelaces of the 3rd violinist untie".
Same problem, leaving out microdynamics will hit the analog tape recording when non double ended NR are abused.
Dolby C, Dolby B, dbx, Dolby S, High Com etc. will all in someway kill the natural "feel" of the reproduced sound because the hunt for eliminating background noise in which we find some very important microdynamics giving us the "glacing on the cake".

Now tape hiss is NOT background noise. Neither is the tape decks mechanical or electrical noise.
But if there is ANY background noise in the source you are recording from, no matter if it is from an LP, FM, a mixer or directly from microphones, trying to eliminate that noise will also try to eliminate the natural "feel" of the recording.

This is where you, as a tape operator/sound engineer, has to evaluate what's most important.
And unfortunately most tape operators / sound engineers chose to eliminate the microdynamics.

There are much more to it but as I am busy planning my motorcycle trip over the Alps, I will have to rationalize my postings for the time being.

"dolph"

I think Mr.Lin was being general, I dont read it as being specifically directed at you. I happen to agree. There are analogue lovers (nothing wrong with that, I am one too) who may not choose to fully look into digital media enough to have a full understanding of how it actually works, I find there are a lot of comments thrown out there based on speculation or generalisation.
I mean Im sure you have the best intentions, and I respect that, but I am a sound engineer and have been most of my adult life, for over 23 years, I make my living as a sound engineer. I can tell you as an engineer, I and my fellow engineers have never chosen to eliminate "micro dynamics".
Im a musician and have been playing music almost all of my life..........LP's, CD's, cassettes, 1/4inch whatever, I will listen to almost any format depending on what Im listening to and what its recorded on, but I wont listen to 192kbps mp3's............................320kbps mp3's however are fine when you are on the airplane with your ipod, no problem there at all.

To answer the question of the OP............"why should one medium sound better than another?".
Take a well recorded and mixed and Mastered album on a CD, its going to sound better than a horrible waffer thin badly recorded horribly mastered LP, or the other way round.
I choose to listen to some albums on vinyl over CD because I prefer the mastering which they did for the LP version for instance.
However when Im traveling in my car or Im on the airplane, I still want hear my music, so the digital version will do.
All examples of different media are not going to be the best examples available, the music varies, different recording engineers mastering engineers, record plants, CD plants...............there are so many different variables which contribute to the consistancy of sound and quality......Thats the best I can come up with............

 

[andy]

...

Now tape hiss is NOT background noise. Neither is the tape decks mechanical or electrical noise.
But if there is ANY background noise in the source you are recording from, no matter if it is from an LP, FM, a mixer or directly from microphones, trying to eliminate that noise will also try to eliminate the natural "feel" of the recording....

I'm not sure what you mean here. You talk about digital being bad because it has no background noise, but then you say that tape hiss isn't the background noise you're talking about. What other noise is there that digital eliminates? It certainly doesn't eliminate background noise picked up by the recording microphones any more than analog tape. As far as I know, they don't apply any extra noise reduction to the music when making a digital recording (unless they are trying to clean up an old, noisy master). In fact, digital usually has a small amount of noise deliberately added to it (dithering).

As far as Dolby goes, it shouldn't reduce background noise in the signal unless you're trying to play a non-Dolby recording with Dolby turned on, it should only effect tape hiss. I'll agree that it can be a mixed blessing, but not because it takes natural background noise out of the recoding. Basically, Dolby just increases the recording levels at the frequencies where tape hiss is the most noticeable, then cuts the same frequencies on playback. Tape hiss is reduced because by the playback cut. It's a little more complicated than that, but there isn't any real noise reduction in Dolby, it just increases the recorded signal levels relative to the tape hiss, and restores the correct levels during playback.

 

[bluesky]

Yes, they do.

I just can't help having the same thought as I read through this thread: we're never going to settle the "debate" about which format is better, because there's too much subjectivity involved. You know what I think would be a refreshing change? A thread in which we talk about the things we love about digital and analog, what their strengths are. Can't we all just get along?

That's a great idea!!!! But LPs 'feel'/sound better!!! LOL

Workin an a George Harrison JN LP right now! :>) Actually two.


"A refreshing thread in which we talk about the things we love about digital and analog, what their strengths and weaknesses are". THAT'S a GOOD IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Start one!! YES!! YES!! YES!! YES!! YES!!!


I have many CDs I 'really like', mostly MFSL and Boots. I love 'sound quality' but I also just love 'real great music'. I just like it 'REAL'. If it ain't real, it ain't nothin. If it sounds bad, but it's ' r e a l l y - g o o d ', it's excellent, most excellent!, I like it, in fact, I LOVE IT! A LOT!! ' B I G - T I M E !!' Anything from Delta Blues, to Nat King Cole, to Jazz, to Rock, to even foreign local albums (brazil, japanese, korean, thailand, you name it - I really did that stuff!)...even Elvis! :>)

That's a -- 'real good idea Lin'! -- Start a NEW Thread on CDs and LPs strength and weaknesses. Good idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Haven't seen one before, but there may have been. Anyway...start a new thread. It should go for pages and pages!! GOOD IDEA! >> ' DO IT '.

Say something like...'what do you really 'love and hate' with both mediums...CDs and LPs! Be honest. Tell the truth. What do you love and hate about both'.

Got a new NAD CD player and quite honestly, it sounds pretty good. Not quite LPs, but it sounds pretty good. I'm pretty amazed really. It's quite nice!

( " LOVE and HEIGHT ": sounds like someplace from my past, a while ago! :>) Woowie Zowieee! Janis Airplane Airlines)

Your idea...run with it! :>)

Start a thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kevzep]

Actually further to the last post, niklasthedol was talking about background noise (ambiance I presume).
Wouldnt a digital recording be able to pick up that noise far better than tape for example with the 100 odd dB of dynamic range available in digital world? You would actually hear the background noise as opposed to hearing tape hiss masking the background noise, given a tape machine has nothing like 100 dB of dynamic range. Im talking about the original recording medium here.
In fact digital recording will reveal the limits of the microphones and microphone preamps because of that same thing, its not tape hiss you hear now, its the mic pre's hiss.
Just thought I would throw that one out there........................A few thoughts I had kicking around, we certainly in recording world now can find the limitations of analogue mic pre's, no doubt about it.
So nowdays we demand even better (quiter) mic pre's than ever before..................

 

[bluesky]

What's backround noise? 'Sounds' like I need some of that! :>)

 

[kevzep]

What's backround noise? 'Sounds' like I need some of that! :>)

The guitarist with the smokers cough, or the phone ringing in the studio during a take, the cellist farting, the rustle of the singer reading the newpaper during his vocal take, oh wait, no its the AIR, the stuff only analogue gear can pick up.......... not the sort of thing that could be buried by the TAPE HISSSSSSS......................

I jest guys......Im listening to Led Zeppelin 2 on 1/4 2track RtR.............sounds great on AMPEX 456..........

 

[niklasthedol]

Well right now I listen to own analog master recording of NHØP, Kenny Drew, Svend Asmussen & Ed Thigpen on ½-track 1/4'' PB on Lyrec PTR-1.

Better sounding than back-up 24/192 digital studio HD recording with signal from same set-up.

Wonder why?

"dolph"

 

[kevzep]

Well right now I listen to own analog master recording of NHØP, Kenny Drew, Svend Asmussen & Ed Thigpen on ½-track 1/4'' PB on Lyrec PTR-1.

Better sounding than back-up 24/192 digital studio HD recording with signal from same set-up.

Wonder why?

"dolph"

I think the point is, define "better" subject to what? Fact or opinion? Personal Taste? Others may prefer the digital version.
There are so many variables as I have said before, so really at the end of the day it all comes down to the indivdual.
This is the trouble with these discussions sometimes....................

I think we have nearly exhausted this thread now............

 

[niklasthedol]

I think the point is, define "better" subject to what? Fact or opinion? Personal Taste? Others may prefer the digital version.
There are so many variables as I have said before, so really at the end of the day it all comes down to the indivdual.
This is the trouble with these discussions sometimes....................

I think we have nearly exhausted this thread now............

"Better" for me is closer to the original analog reference as it was performed and sounding when recorded.

For my master recordings it's pretty easy for me to know which is "best" as I was there.

"dolph"

 

[Mr. Lin]

I think Mr.Lin was being general, I dont read it as being specifically directed at you.

Yes my comment was about the constant CD bashing that often goes on, which I suspect is sometimes based on knowledge of the inherent limitations of the format rather than listening to a well-recorded CD on a very good CD player.

As for the background silence, when one uses the term "black background" it refers to a sense of depth and space, not that anything from the original recording has been covered up or eliminated. Ambient cues from the master tape should not be eliminated, that wouldn't make any sense. Interestingly, the "blackest background" I've ever experienced in audio was with a turntable setup. Who'd have thought?

 

[kevzep]

"Better" for me is closer to the original analog reference as it was performed and sounding when recorded.

For my master recordings it's pretty easy for me to know which is "best" as I was there.

"dolph"

Exactly, this is what Im talking about, you were there, which is a big difference from people speculating, and not making statements based on actual knowledge and experience.
There would be some people who couldnt tell the difference unless they could see the equipment and model numbers. These are the people who listen with their eyes and not their ears.
But thats another topic.........................