[Willakan]

Best thread derailment ever.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Even those tracks on Binaural that are claimed to be so are weakly done - it isn't that impressive.  If I remember correctly, that album also suffers from dynamic range compression.
 

 

 
binaural eh?

 

[leeperry]

http://www.pacificvalve.us/PVFathom.html

The music flows like a vinyl with a tube rectified preamp. There is a sense of realism

 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

http://www.pacificvalve.us/PVFathom.html
 

Vinyl? Tubes? They could have sold that for at least ten times as much.

 

[Willakan]

Urgh, NOS with tubes? I will be very happy the day anyone who tries to sell their equipment as "analog sounding" is laughed at.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Even those tracks on Binaural that are claimed to be so are weakly done - it isn't that impressive.  If I remember correctly, that album also suffers from dynamic range compression.

Sadly yes it could be better, but it could also be worse. Just okay music and fidelity.

 

[gregorio]

I find this sort of discussion quite commonly on HeadFi and from my perspective it's all rather strange.

Some people prefer the sound of vinyl and some the sound of CD. Those who like vinyl think it's more accurate, those who like CD can prove that vinyl is much less accurate. The reality is that CD is at least 10 times more accurate than vinyl in every measurable way but that is completely missing the point. Let me draw an analogy:

Let's say there is an online forum devoted to car tyres. The place is full of tyre geeks and aficionados. They are so wrapped in the world of tyres, everything is judged by the tyres. There is a discussion about using the Pirelli tyres from a Ferrari on a Ford. Many say that the compound and size of the tyres is what gives the Ferrari better performance than a Ford, so some people go out and put Ferrari tyres on their Ford and believe that their Ford is now hugely improved but others call them idiots because Porche tyres on their Ford would give much better performance. So an argument ensues about the relative performance benefit of Porche or Ferrari tyres, there's all kinds of technical data about how the tyres perform at 200mph (even though the Ford can't do more than 130mph), they talk about the atomic structure of the rubber compounds and the relative performance at temperatures below 30deg. It's pretty crazy and all the time, they completely miss the obvious, that the atomic structure of the tyres is an almost insignificant part of the equation, far more important is the combination of the engine, fuel, chassis, transmission, aerodynamics, etc. But they are blind to it, to them the difference between a ferrari, a porche and a ford is judged in terms of the tyres.

How does this relate to this HeadFi discussion? You are judging the quality of the format by what you are hearing and missing the point that what you are hearing has been defined not by the format but by what has been put on the format. But no one has even really considered this so all kinds of crazy justifications have to be invented as to why one format is better than the other. Vinyl is more accurate, no, OK then vinyl is more accurate if you read it with a $10,000 lazer. There must be some reason it's better because it just sounds better.

I've been recording digital audio professionally for nearly 20 years and it is patently more accurate than analogue and vinyl. But, I agree, there are many examples of vinyl records sounding better than CDs. And in general I think the average vinyl recording is higher quality than the average CD. So why do I not change to recording analogue and vinyl? The reason is simple, CD is better ... confused? You will remain confused until you can get past the fact that quality is defined by something other than the format or even the entire playback chain, if you can look beyond the “tyre syndrome” above, it's not so difficult to understand.

Let's go back a few decades: In the early/mid 80's CDs started to become available. But the vast majority of music was still recorded, mixed and mastered in the analogue domain. Decent recording equipment cost more than a house and a top studio cost more than a street of houses. Even excluding the musicians, albums were created by a team of specialists: Tape Op, Mic Tech, Monitor Engineer, Recording Engineer, Mix Engineer, Producer and then off to another facility to a Mastering Engineer. Plus often a few geeks in white coats to fix and maintain the equipment. Now that's a lot of people by today's standards, where it is not uncommon that all these engineers and experts have been replaced by 1 single person! Recording engineers used to be electronics wizards and spent virtually their entire careers perfecting the art of recording, same was true of Producers and Mastering engineers (although mastering engineers had to spend many years working up to that position). Today, it is not uncommon to come across people who call themselves mastering engineers who have less knowledge than Tape Ops used to (Tape Operators used to be the starting position in a recording studio after Tea Boy). It used to be that to get a job recording you had to start as tea boy and after a few years, if you were talented and qualified, work your way up to recording engineer in one of the $million recording studios. Nowadays, anyone with a PC, a mic and some audio software can call themselves a recording engineer and/or producer within a few weeks. They can put out a CD of their mate's band for a few dollars. There is absolutely no doubt that as an average, standards have dropped considerably.

As album sales have declined, (due to piracy, new models of buying tracks rather than albums, etc.) costs have been slashed to enable the record labels to still turn a profit. Where it was once common to spend 6 months to make an album, now 6 weeks is usual. And those built up decades (or centuries) of experience and skill represented by the recording and production team has been reduced to one or two people with usually just a few years between them. Very few of the big studios make any profit these days and most of them run at a loss. The number of top quality recording studios has declined by about 70% in the last 25 years, while the number of home and project studios, often run by people with very limited knowledge, has increased by orders of magnitude. Is it any wonder that old vinyl recordings often sound considerably better than new CDs?

I've seen one or two strange posts on this thread, one said something like; if you took an analogue master and put it on CD it would sound just as good or better than putting it on vinyl. Unfortunately that isn't necessarily true. I doubt hardly anyone here has ever heard an analogue master, a pre-master possibly but not a master and even less chance of a master of a top quality production. I have, a couple of times and they sounded dreadful!!! How's that possible? Well the master was designed to be transferred to vinyl and all the good mastering engineers (and they were all good mastering engineers back when) knew how to compensate for the non-linearities of vinyl, the bass positioning was changed, the mid and high frequencies were boosted, etc. Production masters (as opposed to the pre-masters which left the recording studios to be ingested by the mastering studios) sound tinny and harsh in reality. Hang on, does tinny and harsh sound familiar? Well yes, it took a long time for mastering engineers to appreciate the linearity of CD and to change working practices of decades to suit the new format. Obviously the implementation of digital audio was considerably less accurate than it is today but nevertheless a large part of the reason for early CD harshness and what some call “digitis” was not due to the CD format or in fact digital audio at all!

Obviously mastering is different today and in fact many vinyl LPs are cut from digital masters. The fact remains though that because so many more people have access to recording technology and usually far less time and money is spent on the creation of the average music, product quality is generally (on average) lower than it once was. There are occasions when it makes financial sense to make high quality recordings, SACD is an example where potential customers are willing to spend the extra for high quality, so SACD often sound better than CD. Again, not because the format is better but because what is recorded on the format is often better. Unfortunately, the market is driven by demand and demand in general is lower quality products at cheap prices.

Sorry if this has turned into a rant, hopefully though this will help one or two of you to put this question of format into a little more of an objective context. And maybe to also be a little sceptical about some of the new formats; - 24/192 and 32/384 are ones to treat with particular caution.

Oh and to the OP, the real talent in the Jarre family was Maurice, Jean Michel has always been a bit full of it and I believe Maurice stopped communicating with Jean Michel years ago!

G

 

[wberghofer]

Gregorio,
 

Where it was once common to spend 6 months to make an album, now 6 weeks is usual.

 
many thanks for your excellent post! I have been in the typesetting and publishing business since 1978, and the development and changes happening in this industry are very similar to the changes in the recording business you describe.
 
Until the mid 1980’s the education of a typesetter took four years. Nowadays it’s common to expect professional results from people who just finished a three day seminar dealing with the handling basics of layout software. And like in the recording business it’s not the computer which is to blame for the terrible results which get printed daily.
 
Regards,
 
Werner.

 

[SP Wild]

I think Vinyl is still around because it appeals to our primal senses of tool making.  Kinda like how every quartz clock is probably more accurate than a mechanical clock - but a good mechanical one holds far greater prestige (not into watches and clocks so not sure if this is in fact true). 
 
A good turntable is like a good old mechanical clock - a masterpiece in mechanical precision.  This fact alone, I theorise, will ensure that vinyl will forever hold a greater prestige in general perception.
 
When people see my speakers, my headphones, my dacs and and tube amps - the next thing they ask is if I have a turntable...and I don't.  These are everyday people that have no clue to hi-fi, but to them, a best sound system must have a turntable. 
 
This has nothing to do with audio quality.  Point being, this thread is useless because vinyl will always hold more prestige - regardless of sound quality.  I think its a very macho/primal thing...and for me, I try to allow my primal senses to run things without clashing with law...so I'm working a budget that will allow me to own a piece of equipment that bridges two primitive urges - tools and music.

 

[zammykoo]

Quote:

I think Vinyl is still around because it appeals to our primal senses of tool making.  Kinda like how every quartz clock is probably more accurate than a mechanical clock - but a good mechanical one holds far greater prestige (not into watches and clocks so not sure if this is in fact true). 
 
A good turntable is like a good old mechanical clock - a masterpiece in mechanical precision.  This fact alone, I theorise, will ensure that vinyl will forever hold a greater prestige in general perception.
 
When people see my speakers, my headphones, my dacs and and tube amps - the next thing they ask is if I have a turntable...and I don't.  These are everyday people that have no clue to hi-fi, but to them, a best sound system must have a turntable. 
 
This has nothing to do with audio quality.  Point being, this thread is useless because vinyl will always hold more prestige - regardless of sound quality.  I think its a very macho/primal thing...and for me, I try to allow my primal senses to run things without clashing with law...so I'm working a budget that will allow me to own a piece of equipment that bridges two primitive urges - tools and music.

Very well said, I never made that analogy between music source and watches/clocks before.
 
and by the way I believe you are comparing digital vs analog clocks, because quartz is the same as mechanical

 

 

[bigshot]

There are good reasons to collect vinyl that have nothing to do with mechanical fetishes. They all have to do with music that can't be heard in any other format.

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

Very well said, I never made that analogy between music source and watches/clocks before.
 
and by the way I believe you are comparing digital vs analog clocks, because quartz is the same as mechanical

 

Quartz still need batteries though, I grew up with this massive clock and pendulum that needed winding up now and then - clockwork I think the word is - aren't rolexes and stuff clockwork because you gota shake'em to wind'em?
 


Quote:

There are good reasons to collect vinyl that have nothing to do with mechanical fetishes. They all have to do with music that can't be heard in any other format.

Valid point. 
 
So I google up "mechanical fetish" and check this out!  I want one...badly...
 

 

[anetode]

Quote:

So I google up "mechanical fetish" and check this out!  I want one...badly...
 

A pepper mill?

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

A pepper mill?

Lol if it actually ground pepper it would be useful.
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
So I google up "mechanical fetish" and check this out!  I want one...badly...
 

That is just too dam(n) cool!
 
Someone has one in beautiful condition on eBay for a mere $2,000!
 
se