[KenW]

Sad news especially for old farts like me. Guess my era is rapidly fading. Will be interesting to see how things shake out from here. Maybe someone will fill the void but economics rule....unfortunately.

 

[Brunoski909]

Look at it this way: All the music worth listening to has already been recorded on tape.

 

[OakIris]

Some more sad news for those of us that like vinyl:

http://www.musicangle.com/shownews.php?id=70

 

[drminky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning here. (I certainly would like to hear XRCDs but they are very hard to find.) A cd version of a good analog recording is a result of digital technology, after all. Doesn't you example actually tell about cd's ability to preserve the quality of the input signal? There is also the fact that you prefer those originally analog recordings to recordings made entirely digitally (nothing wrong with that, of course). To me this seems to suggest that the original analog recordings have something euphonic about them: pleasing but not necessarily accurate. Regards, L.

The flavour of a recording has far more to do with the original format it was captured on, than the final format it ends up on. An Analogy: Why are effectively all high-end tv commercials and top tv shows shot on film (which is WAY MORE expensive), despite the fact they will all end up on digital video? Because the final result is SO MUCH more pleasing when initally captured on analouge. In the visual realm, there is hardly even a debate about which is a better aquisition format when you can see the difference before your eyes (star-wars-george-lucas fanboys excluded).
It takes an incredible amount of talent to shoot on video and make it look half as good.

It is the same for audio (but audio is far more harder to quantify) - recordings initally captured on analogue will be most likely far more aesthetically pleasing..even on cd!! As far as accuracy goes - what makes you think the digital is a more accurate aquisition?

Why do I think analogue is a better aquistion format? Firstly, distortion in analogue is harmonic (just like in your ears, in music intruments like a trumpet for example, and in nature). Distortion in digital is not harmonic. There is no equivalent in nature, and it is far more destructive to the timbre of the music (even when there's a lot less of it). This is why you can't overdrive digital (you can but it sounds like crap). Analogue has headroom (digital does not), and blooms, compresses or overdrives far more naturally than digital. Digital has to be brutally peak limited so it does not clip as clipping in digital sounds so incredibly bad - so goodbye to your natural transients! Largely, because of this ability to tolerate overload, the response of analogue follows a natural response curve similar to your ears (or eyes).

Once the sound is down on tape, however, digital does a far better job in copying the signal than it would do in the inital recording (because the HUGE original bandwidth of nature has been conveniently brought down to a manageable size by the natural compression of the analgue tape (as opposed to the artifically applied compression/peak limiting of digital). Now the digital can capture the 'natural' response of the analogue (with the 'natural' overdrive and all!) far more effectively without the problems of digital clipping/overload.

BTW the best analogue studio tape in wide usage will capture up to 50kHz of audio information. Also, digital is only lossless when copying directly. Do anything to the signal (an effect, a mix, a volume change, a change of sample rate/bit depth etc) and you are resampling - ie losing information forever.

This is why this news is such a potential tragedy.. Even if you only exclusively listen to cds!

 

[Ferbose]

Well said, DrMinky.

JVC XRCD24 takes analog tape, master it analog domain and transfer it to 24 bit digital master. Once in the digital, there is no editing whatsoever, but only down-converting to 16 bit using K2 endoding algorithm. Amazingly, the A/D chip is driven by rubidium atomic clock, which has orders-of-magnitude lower jitter than any clock IC.

Another thing about slight hiss in analog recording: if you remove it using DSP, you will loose some signal. In analog recording, low level information below noise floor can still be preserved. Adding tiny signals to random noise makes noise nonrandom, and human hearing can still decode information in nonrandom noise. In fact, signals far below average noise level can still be heard. Although LPs seem to have quite limited dynamic range (<80 dB), compared to CDs they don't sound compressed. A lot of information below the playback noise floor can still be heard on good LP sytems. Therefore, removing all hiss on analog tape will cause lots of information to be erased.

When converting PCM from 24 or 20 bit to 16 bit, the last bit contains digitization noise (rounding errors). Using special algorithms, digitization noise can be made less audible and even can encode information. This process is called noise shaping or dithering. It is well accepted that with good dithering, the dynamic range of CD approaches 120 dB (20 bit). Some of the more common dithering algoritms out there include SBM (Sony), K2 (JVC) and UV22.

 

[Tuberoller]

Hmmmmm,10 million? I wonder if I could change the name of the company or offer a special HQ audiophile reel tape for us "tapeheads". If I could only bring back the players too,this would'nt be a bad investment.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drminky The flavour of a recording has far more to do with the original format it was captured on, than the final format it ends up on. An Analogy: Why are effectively all high-end tv commercials and top tv shows shot on film (which is WAY MORE expensive), despite the fact they will all end up on digital video? Because the final result is SO MUCH more pleasing when initally captured on analouge.

Perhaps so. But "pleasing" does not have to be synonymous with "good".

Quote:

It is the same for audio (but audio is far more harder to quantify) - recordings initally captured on analogue will be most likely far more aesthetically pleasing..even on cd!!

Surely a matter of taste. "Pleasing" is a tricky concept in hifi.

Quote:

As far as accuracy goes - what makes you think the digital is a more accurate aquisition?

No wow, no flutter, far greater resolution (=dynamic range) than any analog system (AFAIK), no tape saturation, no frequency response aberrations - and negligible distortion. Plus the fact that the overwhelming majority of classical music releases have been digital for more than twenty years.

You are probably right that digital must not be overdriven. But with 96 dbs of dynamic range who needs to do that? Again AFAIK, peak limiting is done deliberately to create a certain sound (and to make recordings louder), not because of any inherent limitations of digital.

As for analog distortion following the "natural response curve similar to your ears" - hmm - any references? And even if this were true (and admittedly it may be), aren't we then using the equipment to do something that should be left to our ears to do (in case we want to have more than just a pleasing approximation of the real thing)?


Regards,

L.

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunoski909 Look at it this way: All the music worth listening to has already been recorded on tape.

Sometimes I wonder if that's not too far from the truth.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Guess why this is happening: Because rap music is taking over. Who needs "musicality" when you can have things go really loud and have bass be artificially-punchy! Honestly, though, the lowering demand of the master reel to reel declined by year 2000, with bands like The Backstreet Boys, NSync, and Eminem taking over. Rock music, Jazz Music, and Classical, Blues, whatever - all was recorded through reels at this point (approx. year 2000), am I right? Analogue sounds so rich, warm, and musical compared to the zero's and one's used today. It's an unfortunate thing that such a company had to go.

I don't know what you mean by "rap" music but just because you don't like a genre doesn't mean you should attack it like that.

I listen to hip-hop because of it's musicality. Hip-hop is one of the driving forces helping keep analogue alive. My friend owns a record shop that sells mainly vinyl and his shop only sells hip-hop. All of my many DJ friends only buy vinyl, only buying CD's if the music isn't available on vinyl. Hip-hop is a mainly analogue genre. The bands you mention are not hip-hop so I guess you probably mean some other music that I don't listen to but either way your aggressive toned posts both here and in other threads are not appreciated.

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunoski909 Look at it this way: All the music worth listening to has already been recorded on tape.

Anyway I wouldn't worry much about the techniques or media, it's the music that matters. Sadly good music also fades away with tapes and vinyl ... =)

 

[Sinbios]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman For the idiots on this forum, Analogue = Raw recording and Digital = Edited, Compressed, and at times Dubbed.

...

HAHAHAHAHAHASDFJHASFHASDFHGH

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunoski909 Look at it this way: All the music worth listening to has already been recorded on tape.

I think you're looking for new music in the wrong places, or not looking at all. Some of the best music I have ever heard has been made in the last few years. The advent of easy accessibility to information and fast sharing of information brought in by the internet has created a lot of good music in the last few years. Of course there are downsides and bad music around, but if you can't find any great, groundbreaking recent music you're looking in the wrong places.

 

[drminky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello No wow, no flutter, far greater resolution (=dynamic range) than any analog system (AFAIK), no tape saturation, no frequency response aberrations - and negligible distortion. Plus the fact that the overwhelming majority of classical music releases have been digital for more than twenty years.

Resolution?

Analogue has an effective infinite resolution as it is a direct representation of the sound wave - digital is a finite approximation of the analogue wave depending on the sampling rate and bit depth. Whereas digital might have a higer SnR than analogue on paper, there is still discernable signal present well into the noise floor on analogue..the digital noise floor is garble.

And on analogue, no aliasing, no jitter, no phase shift, group delay, time smearing, ringing, pass band ripple and no aharmonic distortion.


Yes, classical has been done in digital for a long time for one reason: tape hiss. In quiet passages in classical music the tape hiss becomes apparent. For the last 20 years, the lack of tape hiss was considered more important to classical music aficonados than accurate transients, 'air', warmth of timbre etc. That being said, some instruments don't like warmth - piano being a case in point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello You are probably right that digital must not be overdriven. But with 96 dbs of dynamic range who needs to do that? Again AFAIK, peak limiting is done deliberately to create a certain sound (and to make recordings louder), not because of any inherent limitations of digital.

It is true that compression and peak limiting is sometimes done deliberately in the studio, sure. But with digital you CAN'T DO WITHOUT IT when you record. Classical music is an excellent case in point. Towards the big climaxes, the levels hit -3db and that's where they stay - you lose that final momentum because they can't let it get any louder.



..Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is not that digital recording is useless, it is not. But in the same vain analogue is by no means useless or outdated. If the day comes when analogue recording no longer exists, it will be a sad day for musicans and audiophiles because it is one less technique available to studios, and one less experience available to our ears..

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drminky Resolution? Analogue has an effective infinite resolution as it is a direct representation of the sound -

No it does not. AFAIK (I'm starting to repeat myself) the resolution of any system is limited by its own noise. "Infinite resolution" is a popular concept among audiophiles, but it does not mean anything.

Quote:

Whereas digital might have a higer SnR than analogue on paper, there is still discernable signal present well into the noise floor on analogue..the digital noise floor is garble.

No it is not. Dithering solved this problem a long time ago. If you have a program like CoolEdit you can try this yourself.

Quote:

For the last 20 years, the lack of tape hiss was considered more important to classical music aficonados than accurate transients, 'air', warmth of timbre etc.

Where is your source for this claim? But certainly digital helped us to get rid of tape hiss.

Quote:

But with digital you CAN'T DO WITHOUT IT when you record.

Why can't you? With 96 dbs of resolution you do not have to go even close to the -3 db limit if you do not want to (not to mention the fact that with more bits there will be even more range available).


Regards,

L.

 

[drminky]

No it does not. AFAIK (I'm starting to repeat myself) the resolution of any system is limited by its own noise. "Infinite resolution" is a popular concept among audiophiles, but it does not mean anything.

/QUOTE]

Well, there are two types of resolution: dynamic range, as you mention (expressed as the bit depth), but also temporal resolution (expressed as the sampling rate). Digital may possibly have more dynamic range, but won't have as high a temporal resolution, as analogue is in effect an infinite sampling rate (only limited by the capablility of the tape).