Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 11/11/2011 13:50, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 11/11/2011 09:38, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:

Alas thinking something doesn't always make it true. :-)


In my little world, though, it does insofar as truth can be realised.

Your own little world ceases to cover all you think and do as soon as you
try to communicate with anyone else.


Um, right. I think.

Rob

On 11/11/2011 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:
You take it how you like! I'd hope that my expression of preference is
not taken as an instruction about what is 'better'. I think analogue
provides a better and more musical (don't start!) experience for me. You
don't - that penny dropped a long time ago. And that's fine, just so
long as you don't force your certainties on others, using 'data' or
otherwise.

I'd wonder about how you came to this conclusion. How long has it been the
case - did you originally hate CD when it came out - or did you 'find'
analogue after this?


I don't hate CD. Although I have just given away my entire CD collection
- about 600. Still buy stuff occasionally, but all online now. Like a
few of us here, digital wasn't around when I started listening to music.

Thing is you don't seem to be interested in any of the reasons why you're
wrong. ;-)


Ah well then that's where you'd be mistaken. I do of course understand
that quite a few people do think digital sounds better than analogue a
lot of the time. It's mildly annoying that quite a few here can't accept
that I prefer analogue.

As to why I'm 'wrong' in my preference - I suspect there's an element of
sentimentality/nostalgia. Perhaps some degree of physiological
explanation - my hearing maybe. I also enjoy the physical media.

But I am genuinely baffled that a lot of people replying in this thread
don't hear the 'musicality' - I'll not reel off adjectives because I
then get asked for measurements, and some get on their high techno-horse.

But I would like to know more about the basis of my preference. I've
even asked about and tried filters and equalisers etc. None do the job.
There's something going on that I prefer, and I would like to know what
that is.

But really, there are more important things.

Rob

On 11/11/2011 12:34, tony sayer wrote:
But I think everyone would agree analogue and digital sound different.
it's the same music - original master.

Well be more specific then;!. Take the output off the mixing desk which
if course can be a good ole Neve of several years vintage with discrete
input stages or a new up to the moment SSL desk and what do you call
those analogue or digital;?..

Then that audio before it gets to an amp has to be an analogue signal
unless your going to have yet another digital decode in that amp and the
master what do you specify that as an analogue Studer at 30 IPS with
Dolby SR or an up to the moment digital recorder dumping it all onto a
digital card?...


It's just fed to us differently.


Isn't it;!...


Well, by 'fed' I mean methods of replay, and therefore media. It's all
from the same source, at the end of the day. Just one is better than the
other, in my opinion. Er, preference :-)

Rob

On 11/11/2011 13:31, David Looser wrote:
wrote

But I think everyone would agree analogue and digital sound different.

That's a *very* simplistic statement. Are you suggesting that *all*
analogue* differs from *all* digital in a similar way? How about the
differences between different analogue systems? do you think that these
differences are smaller than the differences between the best analogue and
digital systems? How about the differences between CD and mp3 audio? how do
they fit into your "logic"?

David.


No, not all. I've had to generalise a bit. Even i have had experiences
where digital sounds better than analogue.

Rob

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:19:32 +0000, Rob wrote:

Ah well then that's where you'd be mistaken. I do of course understand
that quite a few people do think digital sounds better than analogue a
lot of the time. It's mildly annoying that quite a few here can't accept
that I prefer analogue.

Why are you not getting this? Nobody here has the slightest problem
with you preferring analogue to digital. It is when you go on
repeating your baseless assertion that analogue is BETTER than digital
that we get irritated. Have you truly still not understood the
difference? I'm finding this increasingly hard to believe, and am
rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are just trolling.

d

On 11/11/2011 14:21, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com...

But I think everyone would agree analogue and digital sound different.
it's the same music - original master. It's just fed to us differently.
And we experience it differently. it's 'our' reality. Maybe I'll think
about this differently in 10 years' time.

You're not speaking for anybody who is well-informed.

Analog and digital sound identical as long as either lacks audible flaws.
Digital without audible flaws is cheap and easy these days. Analog without
audible flaws is impossible with vinyl, but it can be closely approached
with high speed, half-track analog tape. Analog without audible flaws is
easy and cheap for most signal handling equipment that does not involve
storage, such as amps, preamps, consoles, etc.


Yes, I'd agree to a point, although I wouldn't use the the word 'flaw' -
more a characteristic, and I think some people (me for example) could
hear a difference in what, technically (basically, measured as beyond
the limits of hearing) is identical.

Rob

Rob wrote:

It's mildly annoying that quite a few here can't accept
that I prefer analogue.

WRONG!! Everybody accepts that you prefer analogue. The issue is your
redefinition of "better" to mean "I prefer".

You must have been told this at least a dozen times in this thread by
now. It's very strange that you can't get it.

Is this a wilfull misunderstanding, I wonder?

--
SteveT

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:06:52 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Even the best analogue tape is not really close to CD, although like
vinyl
it does depend on the material.

Well, as explained in my reply to Don, the FR was almost identical,

Not really. Whilst the quoted -3dB limits may have been similar, the
frequency response of even a pro analogue tape machine is a lot less flat
than that of a digital system. The inherent HF response of tape starts to
fall from the low mid-band region onwards (depending on tape speed) so
fairly aggressive HF boost is applied to achieve an acceptable overall
frequency response. This means that the overall response tends to have
"ripples" in it as each EQ section comes into play.

David.

Rob wrote:

I was only ever speaking of my own preference. Habit and social circles I
suppose.

Yes, yes, we know! But that is NOT the same as "better"!!

--
SteveT

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Back in the 1970s I had a high-speed Revox A77 which was mainly just a
domestic recorder,

I'd more describe it as semi-pro. Properly lined up they exceeded the
performance of some bottom end pro machines.

Agreed. What I meant was that I mainly used mine as a domestic recorder.
Though as I said I did do some live recording with it.

David.