Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Hi guys - Frogman, thanks for your excellent post. You are so much better at explaining these things than I am. Vertigo, your last comparison to the human voice is exactly right as well. As Frogman said, the instrument becomes an extension of your body. One of my teachers talked about the need to feel "grounded" when you play, because of this. Wind instruments are very similar to the human voice. We manipulate the tone both with our airstream and with our "embouchres," or the muscles in our faces used to play. No recording really captures these subtle changes with total accuracy, which is one major reason why we musicians keep insisting that no matter how good the recording is and how good the playback system is, it is definitely not the same thing as hearing it live. And yes, the term "tone" is much more commonly used for this personal aspect of sound than "timbre." I did not use the term earlier so as not to add to the confusion, but I probably added to the confusion by not using it. Once again, I am glad I became a musician instead of a writer!

In musical instruments, no two are exactly the same.The timbre/tone were different from day of manufacture,let's look at guitars.

I've known a few guitar players who took great pains to find the "perfect" strat, yet to most they would all sound the same ,substitute tone or timbre, take your pick.
Vintage strat,Mexican vintage, far east,new USA manufactured, all sound differnt even before anyone starts to put their sonic signature to it, or start to play around with tone.

In each case some were warmer sounding , some thin, and a lot in between.Depends on the wood, the windings of the pickups the way they were set up,so many variables that make each Fender strat different from the next, never mind how they will sound when played by Hendrix, Clapton or Richard Thompson.
Each artist's style will then impose another colouration, and then in a recording session, so will the effects and electronics used to record the instruments alter those sounds even more.

I just finished reading Harley's last post in TAS, he mentions some of the flaws of modern recording process that I have eluded to before in this post and in others.

These flaws are more evident in todays recording than in the past.The better gear will accentuate these flaws as I said,lesser gear will make them more platable for the masses.

I hate to play the age card, but I grew up back in the mono record lp and tube/vinyl only period, and all my stage amps were orignally tubed.
The solid state bass amps had a lot more punch and volume, but lacked the roundness of the tube amps,now I settle for a Hybrid .Solid state amp, with tube pre section.

So for me,when I hear the way most recordings made today sound through a good hifi rig, I can hear the difference between it and the old purist recordings.

The tone of an old 50's Selmer sax,is much easier to discerne on the early recordings, as compared to some of the newer sax recordings which have been processed to make a sax sound like whatever the producer wants it to sound like.

So how can you compare anything recorded the modern way with any real instrument?
You have a better chance with older 'less'processed recordings, but you still have a lot of the sound of the real thing missing.

This is why the pursuit of accuracy can only be a pusuit to reproduce the accuracy of the recording.
And few if any of us will ever know when we have achieved the same accuracy as that of the master tape from the final mix listened thru the monitors in the studio plus the sound of the studio itself.

Sure we'll recognize the timbre of the trumpet,we can get that right in a recording and playback chain, but we've been able to do that for a long time and in fact,as Harley will support,we did it better in the past than in the here and now.

What I am saying is that when you assemble a system with the utmost care and believe me no stones were left unturned by my friend, and as far as synergy goes,synergy doesn't come by luck. He constantly improves his gear ( 40 Anniversay pre)as the gear improves he investigates how it will better his enjoyment and if it does only then is it added.
His system sounds the way it does because of the time effort and money that he spent putting it together, and it's all been about the music.

But like I keep saying, it's a double edged sword,well recorded music sounds great, poor recordings sound just what they are.
The system doesn't sugar coat the truth, it tells it like it is.

Somepeople may not like a system like that.

I do.
I don't mind listening to poorly recorded music if I like the music I can get over the way that it was recorded,but I regret that most of my favourite music has been poorly recorded,especially the music of the last couple of decades.But things do improve and some newer vinyl re-issues are worth the added cost if they stay true to the orignal and aren't over processed.

Getting back to tone and timbre,most systems even entry level do a great job at preserving both pretty much the way they were recorded, otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell if it's clarinet solo or trumpet solo.

How musicians and recording engineers can alter the tone so much kind of makes timbre seem irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
The timbre of the instrument as stated is fixed, the tones are not.They are as varied as the imagination of the artist and the producer wants them to be.And they are slaves to the recording and playback chain.

We listen to recordings, and whether they are digital or analog they are not accurate to the sound of a live unamplified, unrecorded instrument.

The deeper you get in resolution, the more you can recognize real from recorded, which doesn't takeaway any of the fun of listening to music.At least not for me.

If a system has the resoultion to let you hear the clues and studio artifacts, then you are that much closer to recreating the way the music was recorded at the time and in that space.
You are getting a better reproduction of the reproduction, warts and all.
That it is an altered form, different from how an instrument sounds in the "wild" as it were,doesn't matter to me.I accept it for what it is,and as such I know it's not the way the instrument would sound if it was played in front of me and I don't care that it doesn't.

Like I said it's a paradox,we were all brainwashed into thinking it should sound like the real thing in real time and space, when in reality, if it sounds like that in your system, it can't be real.Or in my perspective, it's not a real reproduction of the way that instrument sounded live before the air from the instrument(sax)struck the microphone diaphram and started down the road of distortions and alterations, far from the way it sounds in real life.

Again I have to state systems that do this are my preference, and this isn't the type of system for folks who just want to enjoy the music and relax.
It's mostly for the folks who take great pains experimenting with cables and power and room interaction, and it's not about just throwing a wad of cash up into the air and hoping for the best.

It's also something that evolves over the years, usually when one gains experience with a variety of components and interaction with systems better than their own, and being honest with themselves and admitting that" my system may not be the best there ever was or will be."

Can my friends system be bettered?
I am certain that it could, as certain as I know my system can be bettered,and so can everyone's.

But we all have to stop someplace,I can't speak for my friend,but I am almost done and I am indebted to him for shedding light on areas that needed to be addressed which I never considered as relevant.

Having learned from his experience,my system improved beyond what it was and now shares the same basic concepts as his.Granted to a lesser degree.

And as such,they are not accurate to the original instrument, and on a revealing system the differences are there

.

Orignally there was a disagreement as to whether the playing of a live hohner marine band harmonica in one's home is acceptable to use as a reference for determining the quality of a systems playback of the same instrument. Basically it was argued that it couldn't be used because Bob dylan playing his and one playing there's alters the timbre because of a couple of things.

1. Each man/ women has a different body structure their "personal timbre"
2. playing style or "tone" is different

Now, i think it becomes important to ask..."how much can 1 and 2 alter the timbre of a marine band harmonica?"

That is...To what DEGREE is it changed? to what DEGREE can it be changed by 1 and 2 ?

Very little . Every time i have heard another player using this brand harmonica live, it has always sounded exactly the same. Using ones "ear" one can distinguish the players style and then using ones 'ear' you can listen for the timbre of that instrument.(the attributes of that brand harmonica that make it distinct both from other harmonicas and other instruments in general)

Imagine you have a 1000 litres of pure water and add 1 drop of chlorine to it and mix. You taste the water "before and after". As the drop of water is to changing 1000 litres of pure water into something else so is a person's "personal timbre" to changing the timbre of the harmonica. Whatever IS the true ratio, (2 drops, 10 drops of water?) who knows, but the point is...whatever it is...its negligible.

So, though we have it seems generally agreed a persons 'personal timbre' does in fact have some influence we need to be CAREFUL we don't go TOO FAR in our understanding of just how much it can change the inherent timbre of a hohner harmonica.

Personal timbre in regard to "human voice" can vary in vast degrees (that's a different story) but the difference between 10 different men playing the same hohner will be minuscule and indistinguishable. (again, i am not talking about playing styles.)(playing styles obviously can vary to massive degrees!)

I love what was said about differing guitar tones because i am familiar with all those things mentioned. I am a proud owner of a '86 reissue of a '57 fender stratocaster built in corona california. Which replaced a japanese 72 reissue telecaster. These two have their similarities and their differences in tone.

As i think the story goes at some point fender changed hands and the plant was move from fullerton to corona or vice versa . The '84 '57 fullerton reissue is the one that gets alot/more... of attention but when i once asked a guy if the tone would be different from mine, he said... no. Well, no two guitars in reality are identical simply because they are not the same guitar.

This begs the question..."will all hohner marine band harmonica's made in the same plant with the same parts, with the same pool of "shift workers" , in the same month/year sound the same?" Yes and no.

Yes, in that there are quality control measures put in place to assure that before a harmonica leaves for market it represents a certain set of standards the company champions. No, in the sense that the odd one might slip through quality control with some kind of problem and no in the sense that if you had the right instruments to measure and identify certain parameters you could distinguish from among them. I would say that there is more consistency in regard to timbre between marine band harmonicas then fender guitars probably because the fender uses much more wood and that wood plays a pretty big part in imparting the final sound of a fender. Of course there are more factors then just its choice of woods, for example, guitars have more parts than a harmonica and therefore this introduces more potential for variability of tone.

So, if someone should choose to use a brand of harmonica as a reference test he can have great confidence in this kind of testing because there is a high degree of manufacturing consistency from one harmonica to the next within the same brand and production run and the differences between those never makes that brand harmonica indistinguishable from other brands.

Switching gears.

In regard to resolution....

I have strived to build a system that will reproduce timbres PERFECTLY. That is my goal. Since as i mentioned.... it is one of my highest audiophile values. (second being dynamics/speed).

If some want TOO, to make this their goal they will realize that at some point he will need to make a decision. Do you want most of your records and cds to sound generally pretty darn good? or do you want to REALLY go for PERFECT timbre(resolving the extremely fine nuances of timbre) and therefore drop the percentages of the former so that now only 4 percent sound STELLAR , many sound ok and some sound terrible/poor?

RE***The deeper you get in resolution, the more you can recognize real from recorded, which doesn't takeaway any of the fun of listening to music.***

Yes AND no! In my experience...the higher the resolution the more you CANT recognize real from recorded which adds to the emotional experience and stuns/shocks you. So, yes the high resolution does this to poor recordings but with some recordings hifidelity and "resolution" is doing its job making things sound more and more real!"

The goal should be to look for components that are high resolution and make no sacrifice in regard to timbrel fidelity. And...that...in some instances is a realistic and achievable goal. Some playback should in fact sound real. The percentages and instances when it occurs should be going up NOT down even if the instances are rare. There was a time when NO aspect of my playback sounded REAL, now it happens in some cases.

How can someone say..."i have the best/highest resolution but nothing sounds real???" Whoever is having this experience...i must conclude...DOESN'T in fact HAVE the best resolution?

I agree with the joke.... "my system is so good, so resolving all my records are unlistenable!" Which implies the person has somewhere somehow started to head the wrong direction and needs to re asses things.

RE***Like I said it's a paradox,we were all brainwashed into thinking it should sound like the real thing in real time and space, when in reality, if it sounds like that in your system, it can't be real.****

Why not? Do you KNOW it can't sound real or do you BELIEVE it can sound real?

RE***If a system has the resolution to let you hear the clues and studio artifacts, then you are that much closer to recreating the way the music was recorded at the time and in that space.
You are getting a better reproduction of the reproduction, warts and all.****

Agreed and that is good but only so long as the "warts" sound real since warts in our natural environment have a natural character all their own but if a system produces those warts WITH artifacts attached to them then that needs to be addressed. I have no qualms with warts so long as they sound real.

There's something i'd like to put out there for people to discuss if they should choose to do so. It is about "cooking up" a sound so as to mimic real instruments. Here's my hypothesis.

It is possible to ADD! attributes to your stereo playback of an instruments timbrel character (after the fact) that:

1. Were unable, failed... to be captured for whatever reason by the "recording system"
and that
2.Despite no. 1 it is possible to REINTRODUCE that fine attribute by the "art of system building"
so that
3. The timbre of an instrument can sound indistinguishable in (some cases)from real.

To use the analogy of "cooking". Suppose you are making a tomato sauce with non organic tomatoes but you buy and taste a organic tomato and that is your reference for what a natural organic tomato tastes like. Now, the non organic tomato is missing some of the organic tomatoes attributes but they do in fact share many similarities in other aspects of what constitutes the taste of an organic tomato. There are other attributes in an organic tomato but one of the most consistent faults of regular tomatoes is the lack of that sunshine sweetness that occurs from proper ripening. I noticed if i use white sugar it doesn't fool me into thinking i used organic tomatoes in my sauce but if i use a teaspoon of honey... it does. Now, when i use honey i am getting closer to a real organic tomato taste but even with that ingredient i can make the error of not using enough or too much honey it is then that the tomatoes "timbre" (smile) will be "inaccurate and "not true"".

Analogies at some point always break down but i think it's still a valuable analogy. If i know and can source the sound of a real instrument and i can use it along with exotic materials and designs at our disposal in hifidom perhaps i can push and pull the timbres to "lock in" on the sound of trumpet or harmonica during my stereo playback of those instruments, irregardless of the failures of the initial recording process.

For example, What if the image size of the performers vocals had become too large and unnatural (not like real life) because of something in the chain from "recording to pressing" ....can't i control image size in a whole list of different ways available to me by system building? Yes, i would argue, you can.

What if a hohner was recorded too thin (or comes across as sounding too thin)? What if it comes across as sounding like it has tin reeds instead of the shiny smooth stainless steel reeds? or like a rubber comb harmonica instead of a plastic comb harmonica? What if the harmonica comes across as being 1foot wide instead of a few inches wide? I argue this can be fixed to sound as a real harmonica sounds in every single regard.

Of course in low resolution, highly distorted, colored, slow systems they won't stand a chance in imitating a real harmonica. What about in class A where the entire signal is amplified (less manipulation), in short simple circuits using good silver conductors, in quiet, neutral, low distortion speakers that use fast powerful neo magnets and no crossover, carts that use neo magnets and solid gold, etc, etc, then, there stands a much better chance to realize the goal of impeccable timbres.

Synergy. There is no clearly defined standard by which all audiophile use to guarantee synergy. There is a general understanding of what generally will work and generally we are right about it and get general results but no one knows where synergy will be found at least at the level at which i am talking about it. If i am looking for "a little of this but not too much of that" can i ever know if x wire or Z component will deliver in the quantity and quality that i am looking to it for, with nothing more or nothing less added or subtracted? For the most part audiophiles are clueless in regard to the outcome as to how exactly the fine details of one component will mix with another and what that change will bring. All they can do is try it and see and then they will know. I think i will be waiting for a long time to see a 40 page book titled "Synergy: Where and how to find it" So,with this qualifier, it is in this sense that i say with regard to synergy "it's better to be lucky than good". The person who plays the big lotteries alot still never wins but it might happen that the person who plays rarely just happens to win the jackpot.

It is because of this that i often wonder just exactly how some peoples systems sound since there are so many out there that are very different and we are all quite isolated from them and ignorant as to how they sound and what is possible and what is not .

.

.

(i left two posts today)

High resolution and timbre.

Between High resolution and portrayal of instrumental timbres.

You can have any one of these combos

1.Low resolution, very good timbre
2.low resoution, poor timbre
3,high resolution, poor timbre
4,high resolution, very good timbre

It does not follow in every case that high resolution necessarily must equal poor portrayal of timbre.

It is a question not just of how high the resolution (the amount of info it can read) but just as important, is HOW that info is portrayed in RELATION to a live instruments timbre.

Play any fine instrument live. This is the embodiment of "lots of info and faithfulness to timbre" (well, there's nothing to be faithful to since it the real thing)

It is wrong, i think if anyone should argue that.... as resolution goes up portrayal of timbres must go down and therefore things necessarily must sound less real.

As long as a systems high "information" retrieval is FAITHFUL to "timbre" at the same time... there is no paradox necessary or at least there is no paradox on CERTAIN recordings that find synergy with what the rest of the system is doing.

What i suspect is happening then in systems that are pushing state of the art in resolution is...that they are operating within a narrower and narrower "range" ...increasing the demand on recordings that aren't "sympathetic" to that narrow range and when the unique signature of how that system was put together finds the right synergy with a recording that has a certain "bent" to it, shazaam, wow, this sounds amazing! But the double edged sword is (with that very narrowed range it is operating in) it has now "alienated" many other records in the collection from sounding good because there are so many variables between different "recordings."

Hmm? Maybe i'll have to become one of those guys who goes back to 'midfi' or vintage because of this. There's a very compelling argument that could be made to justify doing so.

Maybe i should have kept my marantz 2270 and 2325's and just be done with it. What's so great about great timbre? Is it really worth all that money just to acquire it on a few recordings? How many times do we keep walking when we pass a live street busker, or i've seen people fall asleep at live classical music events? (haha) (just thinking aloud)

Maybe the best is to find some middle ground.

Which is better? 1.to have a few things in your collection sound sublime and the rest sound mediocre OR 2.to just have most sounding pretty darn good?

If i did go back to midfi i know that i would be going from... SOME things sound real ...to... nothing ever sounds indistinguishable from real.

But maybe that would be ok to me, since as i've stated before music is much more than JUST having perfect instrument timbre.

.

Vertigo I am glad you have picked up on some of my thoughts, and are beginning to understand what I must be poor at explaining.

I did say that the less resolving, mid fi systems and most vintage gear, have a way of sounding more "musical" to the folks who like to use that term.

I try not to use that term,it means something different to everyone with a system.

Read some of the non professional takes on most high end gear and you will see that a lot of folks don't like the sound of high resolving gear no matter how much synergy there is.Too much detail, fatiguing, non musical, are some descriptors that I've read.
Give them an old 12 inch driver in an untuned particle board box and Sansui receiver and they have found their musical nirvana.
And good for them if that's what makes them happy.
But sorry that's not my idea of a good time.
If it doesn't sound "musical" or nice to their ears, then it's not very good.
Musical to them and not musical to me,and vice versa.

We both know what we like, and settle with the sound that we like.

My preference is to enjoy at 100% the recordings that are well recorded and sound that way thru my system.
I am perfectly content with the fact that this may only account for 40% of my recorded collection.
I would rather be content enjoying the differences than never being able to know that there are any.
Or in other words, I would rather enjoy a small percentage of my collection to the max than to enjoy my whole collection at a lesser degree.

In other words again, I don't want a system that drags the good recordings down to the level of the poor ones.

There's no pleasure in that for me.

I will still enjoy the musicianship and the music on all the recordings, just not the "sound" of those recordings.

And this is why I can't enjoy systems that are low in resolution .To me they make everything sound the same,and I know that's not how it is in the real world.

If the system makes some recordings less pleasurable because for the first time the music is being heard thru a system that isn't rolled off in the treble or seriously compromised in high frequency retrieval,then it's not the fault of the gear.

The gear is only telling it like it is.
So what is more realistic?
A system capable of distinguishing between recordings and studios or a system that homogenizes everything with no distinction between well recorded music and poorly recorded music?

Again, check out Harley's take on the sound of the early jazz recordings or even some of Chet Atkins early mono lps and tell me they don't sound more "real"(for want of a better term)than most everything recorded in the last few years,using analog or digital.

Until a person hears how uncluttered and unprocessed this music is,they don't have a clue about what I or Harley is talking about.

I once had a debate on this forum with someone who flat out told me I didn't know what I was talking about, because I said that early 50's and 60's jazz lps sounded more "real" than most of todays recordings did.
He said we have progressed and a lot of advancements have been made.
I stated, that the old engineers were masters at capturing the sound of the instruments in the room they were played in more accurately because they didn't rely on audio processing and gimmicks and "fixing it in the mix" or even post production work on pro tools.

So when I say that my friend's system reveals these differences even more than mine does,it doesn't mean that the music is any less enjoyable thru his system.
In fact I enjoy it more.Because it gives me a clearer picture about what is going on behind the scenes.

It only demonstarates how many differences there are in recordings, how much the quality varies from studio to studio, label to label and in the amount of processing some recordings get.
It's very easy to distinguish between purist recordings and the ones that aren't.

In other words, his system and most of the better system pull this off, but it's not the perfect cup of tea for the folks who want to have a nice warm and fuzzy relationship with their music and hifi system.

So like I"ve mentioned, there are two ways at the least for folks to persue this hobby.

It's often mentioned that folks who invest large sums of money in the gear are just gear heads.
Partly true, guilty as charged.

But it's all for a good cause.The ultimate enjoyment of recorded music.Which for me is the enjoyment of hearing the trail of reverb at the end of a Dylan harmonica recording that just isn't there in my room or any place else, outside of that studio.

When you are a musician, you can give up and just play the music and forget about the quality, because you know it's not real.
Or you can strive to build a system that at least gets you close enough to "real" to know it when it ain't.