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

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
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.

Gosh, really, well well!

You didn't "generalise a bit", you came up with an utterly meaningless
statement. You simply cannot lump "analogue" into one basket and "digital"
into another and make generalised statements about them. Different analogue
systems simply do not sound the same, and those differences dwarf the
differences between the best analogue and digital.

David.

"Rob" wrote

Yes, I'd agree to a point, although I wouldn't use the the word 'flaw' -
more a characteristic,

We use the words "flaw", or "impairment" because that's what we are talking
about. Recording systems shouldn't have audible "characteristics", their job
is to reproduce what was fed into them as accurately as possible. Anything
short of perfect accuracy is a "flaw".

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.

Do you? really?

Its easily possible to measure differences that are inaudible, its not
possible to hear differences that cannot be measured.

David.

"Rob" wrote

But I would like to know more about the basis of my preference.

You've just given it to us,

"I suspect there's an element of sentimentality/nostalgia. Perhaps some
degree of physiological explanation - my hearing maybe. I also enjoy the
physical media"

Apart from your hearing, which I doubt is as "special" as you'd like to
believe, you've explained it. Its all about nostalgia and a liking for the
physical object of the LP. But you've then decided that you need a more
"respectable" reason to prefer vinyl, so have persuaded yourself that vinyl
sounds "better", and ,since you now believe that, it does, to you.

David.

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:

lousy enough, tape probably won't make it much worse.

OK, we know that a really good pro tape machine is a great deal better
than LP.

IIRC It was CBS who once published JAES papers on the measurable and
audible degredations caused by the steps between the tape and the final LP
due to the limitations of the various cutting and electroplating processes.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
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?

To me it looks more like Rob has adopted the Tweedledee/Tweedledum
appoach to thinking. Words mean whatever *he* decides they mean, regardless
of any concern that their meaning has to be agreed and shared for
communication with others to be possible. So he ends up arguing about
words, rather than communicate.

Leaves me wondering what the state of broadcasting and recording would be
if we had to leave the design and use of all the equipment to philosophers
and sages rather than engineers. Oh, hang on, I think the BBC and recording
companies are giving this idea a try... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article om, Rob
scribeth thus
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



Well now where do you want to start in all this and where is the
demarcation line and where does the analogue get to digital and thats
got to be analogue in the mic to start with unless someone's made a
digital one now;?...


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
If you're going to say that a CD is a better reproduction of the
original than an LP, then I'd agree almost always. (I have one
exception, and that is a mixing cockup caused by a 1990s producer
"sensitively remastering" a 1960s recording to make the drums much
louder - and even that is an artistic not a technical error)

What I want to hear at home is the studio master as signed off by the
production team.

LPs *had* to go through an additional mastering process since not
everything that could be recorded well to tape would cut perfectly.

Yes who invented the *phrase..

"Any fool can put anything onto a tape, but it takes a master to put the
tape onto the disc"


Although one would hope a production team would know this and not allow
anything through that required drastic change.

CD, of course, can reproduce perfectly anything a tape can throw at it.

In the early days of CD, the studio master was more or less just
transferred to CD straight. If the LP had lots of tweaks when being
re-mastered, that could account for a difference in sound not accounted
for just by the inherent LP flaws. And since you knew and loved the LP
before hearing the CD...

These days CDs are also heavily re-mastered. To make the studio master
more 'commercial'. Regardless of what the production team or even artists
want. The suits rule as always.



* Well as near as dammit;!..

--
Tony Sayer

"Andy Champ" wrote

On the other hand if you are going to say that all digital is better than
all analogue _then_ I'll disagree.


Did anyone say that, or anything like it? I think not.

David.

Jim Lesurf wrote:

To me it looks more like Rob has adopted the Tweedledee/Tweedledum
appoach to thinking. Words mean whatever *he* decides they mean,
regardless
of any concern that their meaning has to be agreed and shared for
communication with others to be possible. So he ends up arguing about
words, rather than communicate.

Spot on!

--
SteveT

On 12/11/2011 10:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com...
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.

Gosh, really, well well!


:-)

You didn't "generalise a bit", you came up with an utterly meaningless
statement. You simply cannot lump "analogue" into one basket and "digital"
into another and make generalised statements about them. Different analogue
systems simply do not sound the same, and those differences dwarf the
differences between the best analogue and digital.


Well of course, it's a gross generalisation both in media and hardware.
But in general, I'm talking about CD and 'decent' (properly set up) LP,
and as near as can be reckoned, similar mastering techniques.

Rob