I bought a lot of LPs for under $5, BUT my D2D and "audiophile" recordings were mostly in the mid-teens and some higher. I think you have to compare 180 gram current pressing to the high-end recordings of the 1970s and 1980s. When you do that, the cost ($30) feels comparable to me. $50 is a different story.
I've paid $50 for a lot of reissues. So far, the quality of the master and the pressings (particularly 45 rpms) have been worth it. (Thanksfully I make way more, inflation adjusted, money than I did in the '70s and '80s)
Dave |
03-14-08: Ojgalli asked:
"And a related question that goes out to all.
Do LPs from an analog master sound better than LPs from a digital master?"
Generally I think the answer is "yes" so long as we're talking hi rez digital, such as 1-bit DSD @5.6mHz. Some early digital cannot be rescued, but the good stuff, with good mics and good mastering are incredibly good. Even the best analog tapes have tape noise and or tape compression. However, there are so many great, historic and well done analog recordings that just can't be ignored.
Some of the very best recordings I have are DSD-mastered SACD or DVD-As in two-channel. These rival my very best D2D analog LP, which tend to blow away most, but not all, of my analog tape mastered LPs. We I make DSD archives of my D2D LP at 5.6mHz, I can't tell them from the original disc.
Dave |
03-14-08: Les_creative_edge said:
"In the end I think an LP from analogue masters will sound truer to what the music should sound like than one from a digital source or from a CD made from the analogue masters will likely sound better than digital masters. I...
I think the best source for quality recorded sound is better to best analogue reel to reel machines. But are not as practical for most consumers. Vinyl will be less accurate but will vary from deck to deck because of how it all works. Digital is chock full of possible compromises and other errors. In the end an LP is likely more accurate overall and more natural to our ears than a CD. A digital LP will likely be more pleasing than the CD version because the few inaccuracies it may add will more likely be heard as more pleasing to the listener where as the inevitable inaccuracies in CD playback are nothing but negatives to the listener. ..."
I don't understand why you're concluding these things. We're talking about digital masters, not CDs. If you'd heard a 1-bit DSD master at 5.6MHz I think you'd have a hard time saying that reel-to-reel is "better" or "more accurate".
I think that the best of both analog and digital are very, very good. With 24/192 and soon-to-be widely available 32-bit, or maybe even consumer 1-bit DSD (really already here in the form of the Korg MR1000 DSD recorder for around $1000) the analog advantage has pretty well disappeared, at least to my ears.
As an amateur recordist, the convenience of 130 dB of dynamic range, lack of tape noise or compression is hard to beat.
Dave |
Les, if you've ever recorded large brass ensembles live you'll appreciate the safety that 130dB of dynamic gives. I can record 40dB under 0dB and get a wonderful, low noise, hi resolution recording. With tape I'll need to be right up against the tapes limit to capture the full dynamic range (40-50dB).
You compare good analog to bad digital. I'm comparing good digital to good analog and I see them as equal today and the balance actually turning toward digital, but slowly. Good 2-channel SACDs and DVD-As now rival my best D2D analog, IMHO.
Produceers in both formats make bad choices, but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the potential of both systems.
Dave |
Les, my friend, no offense taken at all. Yeah, we're all just talking here and trying to learn. I understand what you saying and feel the spirit.
I suspect from you comments that you've never really done any serious recording. The 20dB of ambient noise that you mention uses up part of the dynamic range and it's often really higher.
Say you have a fine consumer reel-to-reel recorder with 115 to 120dB of dynamic range at its highest speed. Your goal is to have as little tape noise as possible, so you'll need to record at the highest level possible without exceeding the recorder's dynamic range. So, you have the group play their loudest passage and set the recording level so it's just below or just touches 0dB (115dB in this case). You're recording trumpets and trombones that easily have dynamic range of 40 to 50dB: therefore, your recorder will be set so that the quietest levels are recorded at 65dB (115dB -50dB) which is very soft, even in a quiet room.
With tape, those quiet levels will have too much noise. Of course if you use the very best professional recorder a 30ips (burning very expensive tape) you'll gain 10 more dB of dynamic range. Anyway, back to our consumer machine, you've got a problem, the dynamic range IS too huge. What you do is move your mic back or use a compressor.
With the Korg, I've an extra 15 to 20 dB of dynamic range, which is a huge advantage. For instance, at the Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest, which features a 64-trumpet ensemble at one point, I can set my mics at the front of the stage and have someone play a few loud notes from close range and then back of 15 or 20dB for my average recording level. Since the mics are 20-feet or so from the performers and the noise level of the Korg is so low that I don't have to sit at the recorder and "ride the gain" to avoid overload. I can actually play in the ensemble, record everything and edit later.
Good pop recording have 20-30 dB of dynamic range in them. Get a Radio Shack SPL meter and hold while you listen to Nora Jones or Jane Monheit. They'll start many songs at around 72dB at the beginning then average around 83dB and then peak for just a few seconds at 92 or so dB. On a good system with a good recording, that's very pleasant, not fatigueing at all.
Now listen to a something really dynamic, like Hugh Mesekala's Simela on 45rpm LP. It goes from about 65dB to just under 100dB at my listening position. It's really exciting. They hold the peak for more than a second or two, making the peak VERY dramatic by holding it for 15 seconds or so. That's loud, but still just under 100 dB. Some on this forum might actually let that peak get up to 110 dB, particularly if they set the level based on the very quiet beginning.
So, you're still saying, "that's not 130dB" and you're right. The extra 20 to 30dB allows the recording engineer ease of recording. If Stimela were ever going to get any air play, it'd need to be compressed. Listen to Motown from the '60s and '70s or EW&F from the '70s. The trumpets are actually blowing their brains out, but they sound like toys on those recordings, due to very serious compression, used to fit the trumpet within the context of the rest of the music. Drums are also seriously compressed on most pop recordings.
So, to summarize, the 130dB of dynamic range gives the recordist the luxury of being able to set and forget and still get a high quality. Brass and percussion can be difficult to put on any recording other than those meant to be played on the very best equipment; therefore, post recording mixing will often change the level on the final master.
Dave |
Les, my priorities are close to yours; vinyl first, SACD or DVD-A second, CD third, LossLess Download fourth and that's it, no tape for me, anymore. I think Dolby screws up good recordings and I gave up on costly reel-to-reel decades ago. Those high speed tapes make $50 LPs seem cheap.
Within a year or so I'll have a hard drive music server with true hi rez digital archiving and wireless transfer throughout the house. It's not available today at a reasonable price, but it will be very soon. Of course, I'll keep all my old LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, etc.
Dave |
03-15-08: Inpepinnovations asked:
"Dave, ever try recording 72 brass + 25 percussion of drum & bugle corps? I perfectly understand your need for 130+ db dynamic range in recording!! Do the microphones even have that range?
I feel that the preent state of digital, recording and playback has more potential to do justice to the recorded event, but unfortunately, not many recordings are done with quality in mind, just loud sounds."
No, I haven't recorded a DC, but I've heard it up close, when I helped provide the side for one of the Texas Region regionals. Florida State now marches 430+ in their marching band and I've been 20-feet from the front line. AMAZING. Next November I hope to record over 100 trumpets at the Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest. I love the BIG sounds and nothing beats being right in the middle of it.
Yes, my AKG condensor mics have 130dB and that's it. It works for just about anything recorded at any distance. I've got a 20dB pad in case I want to record trumpet with the mic right in the bell or a drum close up.
I'm hearing a lot of good all-digital recordings, by the likes of Diana Krall, Jane Monheit, Rebecca Pidgeon, Dave Gruisin, many Concord artists and others. Playback in 2-channel SACD or DVD-A is stunning. I even bought a Radiohead album in vinyl that was DDA and found it amazing and only 16-bucks.
So, I think there's hope for all formats. Digital playback is progrssing so fast (32-bit will be readily available at responsible prices within a few months) that the digital-to-vinyl gap is disappearing quickly.
I'm very happy that'll I'll be able to buy a true hi-rez harddrive, music server by the end of this year that'll do justice to my D2D recordings that I've been collecting since the 1970s. BTW, I will NOT be sending $20k Linn's way. (What a crock).
Dave |
Les, you're talking about OLD digital technology.
Using DSD @ 5.6MHz the "packets" are as dense as the oxide particles on tape and dozens of times denser than the 16-bit technology you're using as a reference. I agree with you about old 16-bit with harse filters and other shortcomings, but the new digital is leaping forward by an order of magnitude every few months. Your arguement no longer holds water.
A DSD, i-bit, 5.6MHz sample does NOT lose data in replication. It's truly archival. Using professional-level programs you can copy the file and it will be "bit-perfect" in ALL generations. This issues you address have all been addressed and corrected.
With 130dB of headroom I hardly need to worry about overload; however, if I am worried I can add attenuation or a filter. The 130dB is only the starting point, but it gives the recordist tons of options to never reach clipping.
Let me think a little. I've read some good summaries of today's state of the art. You seem interested enough that if I can find you some links you'll start getting up to date. Have you heard good DVD-A? It's not as good as DSD, which has twice the resolution, but it'll give you some idea of what's possible in the digital domain.
Please note, I still have a very good TT, tube, phono-preamp and a big library of LPs. I believe that digital is just now catching up with analog, but, based on what I hear, it's the gap has disappeared. Unfortunately, you can't buy much at the highest possible resolutions.
Dave |
03-19-08: Ihcho said:
"...I just wonder whether $30 for Norah's LP was well spent for the the marginal difference.
Anyway, for those of you who have both Norah's LP and CD, do they sound quite close in your systems or quite different?"
I've got both and much prefer the LP. It's not just overall sound quality, but the mix seems better. I don't know why they wouldn't come from the same two-channel master, but the CD is more compressed and the vocals not as rich, among other things.
Dave |
