From: Len Cole (leonard.cole_at_verizon.net)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 14:03:38 PST
Many early transfers of material recorded on vinyl was executed without regard for taking the dynamic range limitations of the digital recording process into account, and there for the upper end of the dymanic range is clipped. This has happened mostly in pop/rock music, and not so much in classical music to my knowledge.
I have heard some analog transfers which turned out some amazing CDs, both rock and classical, but then again, it's obvious some engineer paid attention to what he was doing rather than playing the source and recording the signal off the line in.
And for what it's worth, face it... most people are not going to hear the difference because first off, they don't have an ear trained to hear the differences, second, they probably don't have the equipment to highlight the differences, third, they're playing music which doesn't create those differences to begin with, and utlimately, many, many people unfortunately have the disgusting habit of abusing the "loudness" switch, having no concept of what it is supposed to be used for in the first place, and so distorting the output to a point that it's unreal anyway.
I've been exposed to CDs and their vinyl analogs (no pun intended) since the early days of CDs. So I've been able to compare them on much better than average equipment (average meaning consumer quality) and was completely stunned by the clarity digital recording brought to the music.
Although I won't even attempt to dissuade proponents of analog recording, especially vinyl discs, I will not believe that it's worth the extra money to get to the very high end gear audiophiles always claimn to use when hearing these minute differences.
The ONLY piece of equipment I could justify spending tons of money on would be a high-end Nakamichi cassette deck. I've had plenty of experience with them in the eighties, and they are worth every penny if one relies on listening to taped copies of his originals in order to save the vinyl. Of course that doesn't mean that the remainder of the components should be low end, but they don't necessarily have to be top of the line, either, in order to get a very satisfying and true sound.
Digital is far less expensive, and except for the most discriminating audiophiles who can hear and feel beyond 20 KHz and who can afford the equipment to reproduce frequencies that high, it is sufficient to capture most of the essence of the material being recorded.
Not knowing your taste in music, listen to both a CD and a vinyl of Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" and tell me that the vinyl sounds better. I doubt it very much. The album material was digitally recorded from the beginning and the vinyl simply cannot capture the crispness of the music.
ljc
On February 17 2004, Humphreys, David (URB) <david.humphreys_at_honeywell.com> wrote:
>Could it be then that the music being recorded in the early eighties came from analog sources and didn't (couldn't) take
>advantage of CDs' wider dynamic range? I think so. Check out albums from that period and listen to the noise floor
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 21 2004 - 14:30:01 PST