The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Vinyl sounds good, but do we have to listen to it? Dynamics Plugins
Old 28th December 2016
  #91
CCP
Gear Head
 

I can listen to vinyl all day everyday forever, whereas after a few hours of listening to digital I get listening fatigue.
So for me who loves music I would want to be able to listen as long as possible.
Old 28th December 2016
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
For well recorded music that hasn't been tortured by a limiter I'd say the opposite.

Last edited by Greg Reierson; 2nd January 2017 at 12:49 AM..
Old 28th December 2016
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
I'm a part of that contingency.

Actually, I'm beginning to believe that having an automobile with a manual transmission is the most effective anti-theft device that can be had. Nobody coming up these days knows how to drive the damned things.
You might be on to something.

Here’s a decent article on vinyl vs cd.

Do CDs Sound Better Than Vinyl? | L.A. Weekly
Old 28th December 2016
  #94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering View Post
You might be on to something.

Here’s a decent article on vinyl vs cd.

Do CDs Sound Better Than Vinyl? | L.A. Weekly
Yeah, that's a pretty good article. Went in-depth about a lot of what constitutes the difference, however I think Metcalfe summed it up nicely when he said, "Every way you can measure it, digital is going to be superior..."

It's not my intention to incite (yet another) analogue/digital debate, but I sometimes feel that 'measuring it' is not the only means to an end. For instance I still record to tape, and one reason I do that is because I am familiar with it. The listening curve of my ears is accustomed to how the track is going to sound, because tape leaves a fingerprint in regards to frequency response, which isn't necessarily flat - it's fat in the centre, and I like that.

When I tried to record to digital a few years ago, It was the very fact that this fatness was missing that made my ears 'believe' that the sound wasn't as 'faithful' as tape, and I found myself attempting to fatten the sound by EQing in midrange frequencies - but it wasn't the same thing.

My comfort factor is logarithmic, and that can't be measured.

To add to that, and in spite of it, I've heard some CDs that I felt sounded incredibly organic. Both The Posies Frosting On the Beater and Aimee Mann's Lost In Space had a great sound, and the latter was done using ProTools, which really blew my mind.

But a good hunk of vinyl is still hard to beat, especially when the mastering house gets the magic going. I was always amazed that someone was capable of transferring so much sound from tape onto a disc when it came to classic records such as Moving Pictures or Leftoverture.

Last edited by johnny nowhere; 28th December 2016 at 04:12 PM.. Reason: Always an afterthought.
Old 28th December 2016
  #95
Gear Head
 

yes it's a matter of taste definitely. As far as some claimed vinyl stay superior, those (even great engineers) who pretend that digital is better are stubborn. Two worlds, both domain have their own qualities and weak points; refusing this reality is stupid.


In the article, many argue against some things on vinyls, like ticks and pop etc, to justify that the vinyl sound is not perfect. But they don't say the whole truth, they just say what they want to say to argue THEIR opinion and own feelings. A CD will always be played with some errors. By every players, not always the same, depends the players, but there's always some errors. We cannot distinguish them, but our ears are listen them. But then in a world of loudness etc, of destuctive mp3 ... i think errors that can't be heard, nobody care about ahah.


ticks and pops? Hum with a dirty or damaged records eventually, in soft parts... 180gr LP is a joke, but maxi 45 brought a standard for loudness in vinyl. Later the hip hop adapted that to albums. Hip hop album (and i do it too) were pressed as 2LP... Still in 33rpm (better for bass) but 2 lp; then it was possible to have an album over 40 minutes. Usually 50-60 minutes... It means 12-15 min per face. Believe with 12min per face this is very loud.. so much that the eventual surface noise cannot be heard; no ticks no pops thats for sure.
About trebble frequencies, then once again the maxi 45 rpm is a good opportunity for rich trebble. about bass?? No strong bass on vinyl?? what about funk, reggae and hip hop... vinyl was the standard fot those styles. even hip hop, live in the CD era but always preffered the vinyl, there's reasonSSSS probably??? ^^ :D


Engineers who were (are) disappointed because the sounds they mixed didnt sound the same on a vinyl is a joke. I'm recording and mixing sounds, then put it on vinyl, it sounds same, even better. There's a groove and a punch, it's more alive and convincing than playing the same master with my computer.
If it didnt sound the same they should find another cutter ...!! one who will be able to do a proper job lol.


Etc etc... so many argues that sounded really stupid for me, wont described everything, the article is long (but very interesting).


I like what Neil young says.. as vinyl is a reflection, when digital is a reproduction, translation. Because it's true. We work sound as an electric signal, and analog world directly work this electric signal. In digital the electric signal has to be TRANSLATED in bits... Need some converters.. They are now doing a good job but it's still a translation. When in future we will work sound differently, not as an electric signal, when we will abandonned traditionnal microphone and all those stuff, then maybe the digital will be far away superior.. but actually it's not; it's more a compromise and it miss some life (but there's a real purity...)

Digital have qualities, brings lots of opportunities and facilities.

Analog have lots of qualities that still cannot be replaced in digital.

If analog is so bad, why the digital world try to emulate so much??The digi has to progress and find his own way, not trying to simply emulate, reproduce and translate. When it will be done this will be very interesting. It will surely be a long process.. We are on first steps of the bridge actually.


both domain should be taken for what they are, nothing less, nothing more. Too much competition where there is not. I don't care if vinyl is superior or not, i prefer that way for many reasons. First of all, the sounds i search cannot be found in another way.
Old 29th December 2016
  #96
Quote:
Originally Posted by nohay View Post
...but maxi 45 brought a standard for loudness in vinyl. Later the hip hop adapted that to albums. Hip hop album (and i do it too) were pressed as 2LP... Still in 33rpm (better for bass) but 2 lp; then it was possible to have an album over 40 minutes. Usually 50-60 minutes... It means 12-15 min per face. Believe with 12min per face this is very loud.. so much that the eventual surface noise cannot be heard; no ticks no pops thats for sure.
About trebble frequencies, then once again the maxi 45 rpm is a good opportunity for rich trebble. about bass?? No strong bass on vinyl?? what about funk, reggae and hip hop... vinyl was the standard fot those styles. even hip hop, live in the CD era but always preffered the vinyl, there's reasonSSSS probably??? ^^ :D
You know - although I worked in record stores for years - I always wondered why the EP was so popular among these genres, but nobody ever bothered to tell me. I just learned something! Thanks!




Quote:
If analog is so bad, why the digital world try to emulate so much??
Word.
Old 29th December 2016
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
The difference between digital and analog is the difference between fidelity and aesthetic. Digital certainly has higher fidelity in the true meaning of the word (output sounds like input) but analog can add a nice flavor. It's the reason we record with large diaphragm tube mics instead of small capsule measurement mics, run guitars through effects and amps, etc. High aesthetic is the goal of any recording session. Analog (or analog processing) is great for recording and digital is great for distribution. We play with the flavor when producing the music and then present it to the listener in a stable format that doesn't introduce more flavor accidentally.

Digital is your favorite movie star without makeup - a true representation but maybe not what you were expecting. Analog is that same movie star in makeup with flattering lighting through a great lens. That's what the digital world is trying to emulate.
Old 29th December 2016
  #98
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
You know - although I worked in record stores for years - I always wondered why the EP was so popular among these genres, but nobody ever bothered to tell me. I just learned something! Thanks!
Yes the maxi 45 (i prefer precise because some earlier 7" were already considered as EP before, and an EP can be a 12" but at 33 rpm, similar but bit different) appeared with the disco, mid 70s. this was the opportunity to play only one song per face. Better than the 7" because this song could be more long (up to 8 min) and avoid the part near the label (which is more weak to reproduce the loudness especially on trebble, but this is very subtle).
The shortest the duration, the loudness the sound... when you compare a LP and a maxi the difference could easily be over 6db... Luckily engineers were very good and so LP albums were generally done very good (more compression, more eq etc). also a maxi mix compared to the LP version will always be more close to the original mix with a better dynamic range.

We can add one point, the 45 rpm speed give a better definition than the 33rpm. As you get used with reel to reel, you know it: the faster it plays, the better the definition is. Also the maxi 45 rpm is more detailed and is better on high frequencies. for a similar loudness between the same song on a maxi 45 and on a maxi 33, the 33 will be more rich on bass, more warm on low mid a bit foggy, the 45 will give more clarity, better balance etc.


ps: find a reel to reel (an otari mx5050 if possible or a revox pr9) is a project here. Probably i will come take some advice soon :D


Cheers Johnny!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
The difference between digital and analog is the difference between fidelity and aesthetic. Digital certainly has higher fidelity in the true meaning of the word (output sounds like input) but analog can add a nice flavor. It's the reason we record with large diaphragm tube mics instead of small capsule measurement mics, run guitars through effects and amps, etc. High aesthetic is the goal of any recording session. Analog (or analog processing) is great for recording and digital is great for distribution. We play with the flavor when producing the music and then present it to the listener in a stable format that doesn't introduce more flavor accidentally.

Digital is your favorite movie star without makeup - a true representation but maybe not what you were expecting. Analog is that same movie star in makeup with flattering lighting through a great lens. That's what the digital world is trying to emulate.

your point is interesting. And bit destabilizing for me, as i prefer hugely a natural woman to a fancy make up one
You're probably right, i said purity to describe digital. But honnestly i find it a bit clinical. I won't say it miss some warmth or life, but this is a bit cold. But that's true that the reproduction is generally very precise, but this is still a reproduction.

i agree... i highly appreciate digital for some qualities and facilities, but the aesthetic point is the most important, i mean for me; as a listenner and as a producer.
Old 29th December 2016
  #99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
The difference between digital and analog is the difference between fidelity and aesthetic. Digital certainly has higher fidelity in the true meaning of the word (output sounds like input) but analog can add a nice flavor. It's the reason we record with large diaphragm tube mics instead of small capsule measurement mics, run guitars through effects and amps, etc. High aesthetic is the goal of any recording session. Analog (or analog processing) is great for recording and digital is great for distribution. We play with the flavor when producing the music and then present it to the listener in a stable format that doesn't introduce more flavor accidentally.

Digital is your favorite movie star without makeup - a true representation but maybe not what you were expecting. Analog is that same movie star in makeup with flattering lighting through a great lens. That's what the digital world is trying to emulate.
Drawing some great parallels here, dude. The comment regarding analogue for recording and digital for distribution utterly nails it. No argument here!
Old 30th December 2016
  #100
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
You can talk or type about sound all day but I say the proof is in the pudding. Check out a transfer I made of a short section of All Night Long by Lionel Richie and tell me this doesn't sound great!

The kicker is the vinyl sounds better than this 24/96 transfer I made on my Hilo. Wrap your head around that for a second..

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7...XR0MGtKc0U3SEE
Old 30th December 2016
  #101
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Here's frequency analysis of the LP transfer in the post above.

Notice all of the information above 20k?

Old 30th December 2016
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
And almost all of that is distortion! I have done this test. Cut a lacquer from a 44k1 source and capture it back off the disc into the DAW at 96k. There will be a lot of >44k1 content but none of it came from the source audio. All distortion and noise.

Let me see if I can dig up the files and images...
Old 30th December 2016
  #103
Indeed, this is "added" stuff that wasn't in the original. An infidel, corrupted transfer
Old 30th December 2016
  #104
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
And almost all of that is distortion! I have done this test. Cut a lacquer from a 44k1 source and capture it back off the disc into the DAW at 96k. There will be a lot of >44k1 content but none of it came from the source audio. All distortion and noise.

Let me see if I can dig up the files and images...
How do you know its exclusively distortion and noise? I find that odd since the peaks all perfectly correspond to the percussive instruments and drums in the mix that do produce sound well above 20k in real life.

Also notice that its black in-between meaning there is no noise in that section.
Old 30th December 2016
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
See for yourself.

Mastering for Vinyl

Post #21
Old 30th December 2016
  #106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
How do you know its exclusively distortion and noise
Because distortion generally accumulates on transients and both very high and very low level passages. Noise is either equally/normally distributed, or it isn't noise. Only nonlinear distortion has the ability to multiply/extend the bandwidth that's already in the original signal. Noise never does this.
Old 30th December 2016
  #107
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
See for yourself.

Mastering for Vinyl

Post #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR
Because distortion generally accumulates on transients and both very high and very low level passages. Noise is either equally/normally distributed, or it isn't noise. Only nonlinear distortion has the ability to multiply/extend the bandwidth that's already in the original signal. Noise never does this.
+1 to both. There's HF harmonic enhancement both during cutting and playback (mostly second harmonic I think) and, owing to steep preemphasis, less enhancement in the LF and Midrange where the intermodulation would be more audible. On playback steep de-emphasis is applied which further smooths out f3, f4 etc. leaving more f2.

Tape saturation is odd-order HF compressive distortion which has also received "pre" and deemphasis. Vinyl may tend to produce more even-order products than odd at HF due to tracing (not tracking) distortion.

Blackmer (David) wrote an interesting article "Life Beyond 20 kHz" http://www.ka-electronics.com/images...C_Sep-1998.pdf

The spectrum in Greg's 44.1 vinyl images in the OP show a lot of HF content being synthesized. That doesn't necessarily mean its distortion in the musical sense.

Quote:
Analog is that same movie star in makeup with flattering lighting through a great lens.
Well said.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump