Best news I've heard today.
Why should one medium sound better than another?
- Thread starter Old1625
- Start date
Best news I've heard today.
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
Dolph:
I very much respect the fact you are an obvious tape fan. Not many out there and you definitely are carrying the torch. But a bit of perspective might help you understand why you are a very lonely light in the universe.
I had cassettes, then bought a CDP when I was 17 (1989). Never looked back. The cassette could not compare with CD for clarity, bass or background quiet. NOW; I understand there were high end decks then, but I could not afford them, so it was a non issue. And TOTL RtoR or cassette is most likely going to sound good, but the cost relative to the ease of CD use and good sound ANYONE can get out of a CD is obvious. Not many lay people know of tape azimuth, speed or tape width. Average Joe wants simple.
I am not debating that you feel tape is better; I am sure if done right it is amazing. After all, it is a master TAPE that most CDs come from, but the rarity, cost and "hassle" make it a tough sell for most except the converted. And believe me, my favourite audio component is the tape deck. A guy thing, I guess. But LP fans have the ritual too, so don't feel left out.
Who knows? Maybe tape will make a comeback with high res technology as tape cannot be counterfeited as easily or burned like digital files, and the reality is the companies are in the business of selling UNITS, not music.
We will see.
TerryO
Super Member
Well, here's the start of the comeback:
http://www.tapeproject.com/
Better than any hi-Rez format available to the public, although there are some in the works (in R&D labs) that may yet go beyond vinyl and actually equal analog tape...we'll see.
Best Regards,
TerryO
I fully understand your choise and I know you are right on spot here.
But hey, this an audio forum.
Some users of audio forums are collectors of vintage gear, some users are DIY guys getting a lot of fun from hearing their own gear and some are striving for the best obtainable sound quality each within their budget.
I'm privileged not to have to make a living from doing recording jobs.
I did for a very few years and I could see compromises coming along in what I had to accept.
But the last 25 years or so, I only did jobs with no compromises and many times I did it for fun and for free.
For people on a tight budget, you can get really far striving for good sound when leaving analog sources out.
The differences when comparing the best of two, in nature, different sources are hard to detect and takes gear not obtainable on any tight budget.
And it is reasonable to ask if it's worth it?
I would not recommend it for the purpose of impressing a girlfriend or neighbour because chance is very high that they don't give a hoot and can't even hear the difference.
When considering cassette, there are lots of them out there ready to go for what you pay for a soda pop.
And then there are the very few you might have to wait for several years to at all get on the market and you might have to pay thousands of dollars even though they are in need of serious service.
Same goes for Open Reel decks.
It's not worth it unless you all of a sudden find yourself there at this last step after half a century climbing up or if you have been "infected" with this crazy analog master recording culture and just can't look back.
I see no reason to keep any secrets about this but what a lot of scepticism in the world of Audio when just talking about it compared to when people get to hear the real stuff.
If people ask what's the best car I can get and the answer is Maybach, Ferrari or Dusenberg what is the chance he go get one of those?
So much for the torch.
"dolph"
poppachubby
Boo Yaka! Boo Yaka!
Man, don't people get tired of talking about this?!?
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
Just checked out the sight. A start for sure.
But I wonder what is the cost? Limited numbers means economy of scale, and I think we still have a long way to go. The Tape Project might be in the right direction, but not many even know of its point on the compass.
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
Just as tired as talking about tubes, I suppose.
Old_Tech
Yer-isn't!
Not that anyone would really care what I have to say here but here goes. I've been listening since well 1970 or so. And on plenty of good equipment from vinyl to tape then CD then vinyl again and of course FM. I'm not a iPod guy I just don't get it. But I have to say I have had so many great listening experiences in all mediums. Vinyl is fine and sounds beautiful and I'll take a great CD and player any day any time. I can hear fine.
I think that when the music format becomes a point of stressful meaningless argument that it's time to step back and ask yourself if you really hear the music or just think others do not.
Hmmm?
I think that when the music format becomes a point of stressful meaningless argument that it's time to step back and ask yourself if you really hear the music or just think others do not.
Hmmm?
rifftrax
mix-meister
I'm a little confused as why tape has to technically be better than sampling at 24/192 through a really good ADC. There are more than a couple extremely reputable mastering engineers that will back me up when I say that if the rest of the chain is completely identical up to the putting it to an either analog or digital storage medium - it doesn't matter which you choose...for the simple fact that it is impossible to resolve any amount of detail beyond the nyquist frequency or beyond 24bit for dynamics. There will also always be less noise with a good professional 24 bit ADC than direct to tape. I don't care if you use 2" tape or what. There will simply be less noise with a quality ADC to a level you cannot get via any analog medium.
Maybe that noise and "warmth" is something that you like and it may very well add character. There are ample plugins on the market for audio engineering that actually sample and emulate popular large mixing boards & tape machines inherent distortion and noise characteristics so that you can have your cake and eat it too, if that cake is distortion and warmth. However, most of that has already been recreated and tuned at the mixing and mastering stage, you don't have to go needless doubling up the effects.
Maybe that noise and "warmth" is something that you like and it may very well add character. There are ample plugins on the market for audio engineering that actually sample and emulate popular large mixing boards & tape machines inherent distortion and noise characteristics so that you can have your cake and eat it too, if that cake is distortion and warmth. However, most of that has already been recreated and tuned at the mixing and mastering stage, you don't have to go needless doubling up the effects.
Last edited:
TerryO
Super Member
There are also a great number of professionals in the industry that agree with what I've said. This includes those that are primarily involved with digital processing and manufacturing of music CDs. Their stated goal is to equal, and then surpass, analog. They can neither afford to lie to themselves, or say this is as good as it gets, when they know that the goal hasn't yet been attained.
These are the facts, and I'm only concerned with the best reproduction of music. I could really care less what media is used.
Best Regards,
TerryO
bluesky
Lunatic Member
I'm 23. I'll explain it by using generalizations. We like anything that is vintage, because vintage is cool. We grew up with CDs, so when we see a larger presentation of album art, we like that. Many of us still think vinyl sounds warm, and we dig that too, even though it really isn't true. We find physical satisfaction in the process of playing a record, it's a novelty to us (we grew up with CDs). Vinyl is just way more fun than CDs or mp3s. Duh.
Your cool dude!! :yes: :thmbsp:
I totally understand you. And would like to say one thing: Vinyl 'does' sound very 'warm', or maybe it's been recorded with all the warm emotional feeling, and captured on vinyl! It has 'all' the frequencies played when recorded, from top to bottom. That's why they sound so "real", cause they are a true representation, or at least as close as you can get, to the real performance, nothing is cut, it's just recorded, mastered, and put on vinyl. It analog! I 'love the warmpth' of the LP medium. Those are the reasons I love LPs so much.
LPs have soul !!!! LOL They simply do. Vinyl is a living breathing thing that loves quality TTs and very good quality cartridges! LOL
Seriously...Excellent LP, quality TT, very good to excellent quality cartridge = music heaven! CDs can't touch that musical 'feeling'.
CDs are fine, some excellent. LPs 'feel and sound' better. More of an emotional experience. You can get into them, get into the music, like someone said before...you can get "Engaged with the music!" with them, and not just listen to sounds. (and a side benifit...yes, way - way more fun! Just got my gold tipped LITZ heashell leads just right now in the mail, can't wait to connect them but haven't received my NOS 1980 Ortofon 'M20FL Super' cart from Germany yet. Really way more fun! But it wasn't fun - at all - when I broke my old needle off, that was a great Ortofon cart! UGH. But, that's life, using my other new AT cart which is a standby cart. It sounds and feels good but my old low hour 1980 Ortofon cart was way much better. New NOS 1980 Ortofon cart's in the mail.)
Yeppers! Wonder why! Exactly! Must 'feel and sound' wonderful!
Better to me...means....>>> Better.
More connected, more engaged, more emotional content and interaction with the music. Better sounding. Better.
Wonder bread is good. Home cooked fresh bread is...'better'.
Digital is good. Analog, to me, sounds and 'feels'..."way better"!
What is better? More engaged in the music. More live/alive...more real. more honest. more true. more better. :>)
Thank you! You can say it much better than I. And you would know!!!!!!!!!!!!! :>) It's what you do!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a modest collection of CDs, 600+, with 130+ of em being MFSL, Mastersound, etc. They do sound great. But vinyl 'feels and sounds'...better. To some of us anyway. The only reason I have the CDs was because of my old job where CDs were the only way to go. I worked on a non-stable shaking platform for 34 years. It was CDs only.
If you 'like and love' the sound of CDs...very cool, excellent. It's the perfect 'medium' for you.
I have some LPs that just sound soooo baaaaad. haha. I have some CDs that sound soooo baaaaad too!!!!
ok...
To get back to the main question of this thread...
Why should one medium sound better than another?? >>> The way it's recorded, mastered, and processed for sale. Guess that would be the the 'real answer'.
Last edited:
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
To answer the question as it's posed: I agree.......
When any reasonably high res format is reduced to an Mp3 sample and then played on even the most sophisticated car stereo possible, or less, it seems to me to be a mote point which is the "better" format. Yes?
...more than a bit late to chime back in on this topic for sure but, I just lost it a bit back there in the beginning (thin skinned I'm afraid) and sorry for the buzz kill. Meant to stifle no one's words and opinions or attempt to dissolve the tired old discussion Mr. Lin and friends. Yet this discussion topic is as definitively unanswerable to me as the question... what is the sound of one hand clapping?
It’s not the the question of “better format” but the context of what you’ve done to it (the sound) and the subsequent confusing references to “preferred format” that seem to get a bit under my skin.
Now on to “better format”, I would whole heartedly agree it would be true that we can all be moved by a song playing through a simple transistor radio. To suggest that that somehow legitimizes a case on the "format" question as being even competitive or a superior one?, and all this based on that moment of personal emotion?? toward a song is absurd IMHO. My ears and opinion I guess, humbly rank no more authoritative than anyone else's here at AK, yet after having (and considering myself extremely fortunate and blessed to) the emotional and instructive music experiences of some seven years of exceptional chamber seats at the exquisite Detroit Symphony Hall (before restoration), countless coffee shop and small lounge venue experiences, Hill Auditorium, Masonic Temple, sitting just three feet from Patricia Barber on a vintage Steinway in someones living room for an evening, or just three feet from J.J. Cale on two occasions at the Ark, it is in my mind absurd to juxtapose with modest or even dismally flawed reproduction medium and/or equipment and conditions (any car). I love playing tunes when I drive as much as the next guy, sunny day, windows motored down, but hardly consider it any place to formulate an opinion on audio???
I've heard so much crap though the years about "personal preferences" or convenience, or comment made with the lack of a real music reference driving someone's choices, etc, but to seemingly validate a format as "sounding better" when I assume we mean one that is (most like the real experience) that we are fumbling to reproduce to the point of suspending disbelief from the confines of our (not so always) easy chair, yes, a matter of personal perception, with convoluted issues included, I feel we are losing sight of the point. On the other hand if some are suggesting that per se, they like the way their $90 CDP, forty year old semi-conductor Pioneer receiver, and delaminating Advent speaker cones sound and that that somehow constitutes an understanding of a "better format" and that is your total scope of things?... puff! I’m really sorry, let's not confuse liking electronic sound affects with portraying a believable image of a live musical reproduction. OK? I think a problem comes in when audio equipment or amplified performance is our only touchstone to compare audio reproduction by.
So, if this is just a friendly conversation about "better format"... I think in the context of the question, for me, there is no better format... or in other words they are all better formats or all the same, more or less.
Just one audio guys opinion :^)
Happy (music?) Listening!
To answer the question as it's posed: I agree.......
When any reasonably high res format is reduced to an Mp3 sample and then played on even the most sophisticated car stereo possible, or less, it seems to me to be a mote point which is the "better" format. Yes?
...more than a bit late to chime back in on this topic for sure but, I just lost it a bit back there in the beginning (thin skinned I'm afraid) and sorry for the buzz kill. Meant to stifle no one's words and opinions or attempt to dissolve the tired old discussion Mr. Lin and friends. Yet this discussion topic is as definitively unanswerable to me as the question... what is the sound of one hand clapping?
It’s not the the question of “better format” but the context of what you’ve done to it (the sound) and the subsequent confusing references to “preferred format” that seem to get a bit under my skin.
Now on to “better format”, I would whole heartedly agree it would be true that we can all be moved by a song playing through a simple transistor radio. To suggest that that somehow legitimizes a case on the "format" question as being even competitive or a superior one?, and all this based on that moment of personal emotion?? toward a song is absurd IMHO. My ears and opinion I guess, humbly rank no more authoritative than anyone else's here at AK, yet after having (and considering myself extremely fortunate and blessed to) the emotional and instructive music experiences of some seven years of exceptional chamber seats at the exquisite Detroit Symphony Hall (before restoration), countless coffee shop and small lounge venue experiences, Hill Auditorium, Masonic Temple, sitting just three feet from Patricia Barber on a vintage Steinway in someones living room for an evening, or just three feet from J.J. Cale on two occasions at the Ark, it is in my mind absurd to juxtapose with modest or even dismally flawed reproduction medium and/or equipment and conditions (any car). I love playing tunes when I drive as much as the next guy, sunny day, windows motored down, but hardly consider it any place to formulate an opinion on audio???
I've heard so much crap though the years about "personal preferences" or convenience, or comment made with the lack of a real music reference driving someone's choices, etc, but to seemingly validate a format as "sounding better" when I assume we mean one that is (most like the real experience) that we are fumbling to reproduce to the point of suspending disbelief from the confines of our (not so always) easy chair, yes, a matter of personal perception, with convoluted issues included, I feel we are losing sight of the point. On the other hand if some are suggesting that per se, they like the way their $90 CDP, forty year old semi-conductor Pioneer receiver, and delaminating Advent speaker cones sound and that that somehow constitutes an understanding of a "better format" and that is your total scope of things?... puff! I’m really sorry, let's not confuse liking electronic sound affects with portraying a believable image of a live musical reproduction. OK? I think a problem comes in when audio equipment or amplified performance is our only touchstone to compare audio reproduction by.
So, if this is just a friendly conversation about "better format"... I think in the context of the question, for me, there is no better format... or in other words they are all better formats or all the same, more or less.
Just one audio guys opinion :^)
Happy (music?) Listening!