[qwerty870]

Fewtch,

I can only disagree with you in every way. There is no numerical measurement to guage neutrality. Ive worked with some 30ips master tapes in the past. Not only does the best of vinyl sound closer to them but it sounds closer to what real instruments sound like in real space as well. (As compared to the best of CD) that is how i define neutrality. In my experience CD loses every time. The knowledge that some Sony or Philips engineer decreed that CDs beat vinyl everytime numberwise means nothing to me. I beleive in the rediculous pursuit of the absolute sound. As of now Ive come closer through vinyl than CD.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally posted by qwerty870 Fewtch, Ive worked with some 30ips master tapes in the past. Not only does the best of vinyl sound closer to them but it sounds closer to what real instruments sound like in real space as well.

So you have been able to do this kind of comparison. Very few of us have had the opportunity to test the master tape with vinyl and cd made from that master tape.

It would be interesting if you could be a bit more specific about this: what was the recording in question, what equipment listened you with, was the cd vs. the master tape comparison done blind etc. ?


Regards,

L.

 

[steelydoubt]

some time ago i was about to purchase a dvd-a, while looking into the format i found that it supported sample rates up to 192ksps. but rarely humans can her more than 22khz, so why would one want to have the material at such a high sample rate? i think it is definition of waveforms, even if you have something sampled at 96ksps but you put a low pass filter at ~25khz before and after the samples are taken you would probably find that the sound was more natural and less harsh than a 44.1ksps sound.


on that note. while cd is great in most cases; i sometimes hear the sound hitting the noise floor when during a quiet part or fading out of a song, its a rumbling sound, while with vinyl its broadband noise.

 

[steelydoubt]

vinyl does get a plus for the big cover art. thats why i use minidiscs instead of having an mp3 player; i need the cover art!

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by qwerty870 Fewtch, I can only disagree with you in every way. There is no numerical measurement to guage neutrality. Ive worked with some 30ips master tapes in the past. Not only does the best of vinyl sound closer to them but it sounds closer to what real instruments sound like in real space as well. (As compared to the best of CD) that is how i define neutrality.

I define neutrality totally differently than you do. To me, neutrality is as close a sound to the original recording as possible, as close to what was on the master tapes as possible with minimal distortion. In other words, I have an "engineer's" perspective on neutrality -- not surprising perhaps, as I do some digital audio work in my spare time and am a technically oriented person.

What you define as "neutrality," I'd perhaps call realism or naturalness, maybe "musicality." It's a matter of semantics, I guess... in fact I value both musical realism and neutrality (and transparency, and a bunch of other stuff as well).

Unfortunately, a lot of what you call "neutrality" has more to do with the quality of the recording (in my experience) than it does the equipment. A great recording played on average equipment will generally sound better than a poor recording played on excellent equipment.
Quote:

Originally posted by qwerty870 I beleive in the rediculous pursuit of the absolute sound.

Mind translating that to English?

 

[JefferyK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leporello So you have been able to do this kind of comparison. Very few of us have had the opportunity to test the master tape with vinyl and cd made from that master tape. It would be interesting if you could be a bit more specific about this: what was the recording in question, what equipment listened you with, was the cd vs. the master tape comparison done blind etc. ? Regards, L.

Both John Pfeiffer and Wilma Cozart Fine have stated in interviews archived online that the BMG Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence CD reissues, respectively, far more accurately represent what is on the master tapes than any of the LP incarnations did.

I have heard that sometimes some LPs do end up sounding a bit better than their master tapes but that this is largely a result of EQing and other twiddling during the mastering process and is not a property of the LP format itself.

Also, keep in mind that although LPs can theoretically go up to 30 khz, the RIAA curve cutoff is 22 khz. Furthermore, folks who work in LP mastering know that despite the potential of cutting heads, it is very, very difficult to get one to reproduce anything above 18 khz accurately. So, the notion that LPs have more highs than CDs simply is not true. I often think that folks who complain about "tizzy" highs on CDs are actually responding to hearing highs for the first time.

I own records. I enjoy listening to them. I like how they sound. I like the packaging. I like record shopping. But the myths supporting the alleged technical superiority of the LP format really are myths, not facts.

Jeffery

 

[qwerty870]

Quote:

So you have been able to do this kind of comparison. Very few of us have had the opportunity to test the master tape with vinyl and cd made from that master tape.

I worked for Deutsche Grammophon over a decade ago for a few years. I only worked on recording large orchestral classical music. We usually recorded to 30ips tape although towards the end they were switching to digital. We had lots of huge reel to reel machines ampex, tascams, and lots of other big money machines. Through these I heard what was closest to the original performance than any other recorded media I have had experience with. (My proffesional experience was only with classical music.)

Quote:

I define neutrality totally differently than you do. To me, neutrality is as close a sound to the original recording as possible, as close to what was on the master tapes as possible with minimal distortion. In other words, I have an "engineer's" perspective on neutrality -- not surprising perhaps, as I do some digital audio work in my spare time and am a technically oriented person.

According to this deffinition I still think vinyl has the ability to get closer to what a real orchestra sounds like on a master tape. Real analog tape sounds more like vinyl than CD hands down. So few people have heard real 30ips tape on a pro machine I think theyd be surprised to hear that it sounds much more like vinyl. Of course no one uses tape any more. Not even DG (especially since Universal.) CD probably does sound more like the "master" hard disc recording CDs come from now adays. But to me vinyl has the potential to sound more real.

Quote:

Mind translating that to English?

I was half joking. I think that hifi should try and replicate what real music sounds like. I know its impossible, but I believe its a worthy goal. I agree with the J Gordon Holt school of thought all the way.