STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
^^ There's a lot of truth there. I've worked as a professional sound engineer, both studio and live and previous to that I worked in record retailing just on the cusp of CD's coming in and replacing vinyl. Early digital was generally crap. I ran a couple of CD only stores in the early eighties and some of the stuff that came out initially was a joke, appalling mastering and conversion ( the fact that most of it was actually about 12 bit rather 16 didn't help). It improved quite quickly as the better labels that gave a **** remastered specifically for CD using better procedures and equipment. Allied to this was the rapid improvement in CD players. When I was studying to be a sound engineer ('88) I was using a wide selection of the earliest DAT machines on the pro- market, both mastering to and recording direct to, and they all sounded different, very few sounded "natural" (ie what you put in was the same as what came out). They did improve very quickly though. Once it got to 20 bit the better machines started to sound OK if not brilliant. One of the criticisms of digital is that it is too bright, but one of the major problems was that in the early days especially, all the analogue equipment (microphones with humps in the upper mid response) and techniques were designed to make up for signal and bandwidth loss from the all analogue chain, primarily at the top end. Effectively this meant that when you recorded or mastered to digital you got the double whammy of boosted top end on record and no loss on playback (relative to the analogue equivalent), hence it's overbrightness. Some of the wiser heads realised this and compensated accordingly by removing top end or using flatter response mics etc. (I used to like Calrecs for their very flat EQ curve and natural sound). The compromises involved in analogue recording were and are many. I was trained old school, tape splicing, test tones, demagging and degaussing heads etc. etc. I can tell you from my own recording experience ( multitrack rock/pop to live two track classical and jazz and everything in between) and having sat in on sessions at places like Abbey Road with top engineers and producers, what you put in and what you get back are not the same, even with half million pound desks, top end Studers and 50 grand monitors etc. Even say stereo pair direct to half inch two track @ 30 ips, no compression or other outboard interference. It still doesn't sound the same as the source (although admittedly a lot closer that most multitracked stuff.) Then you have the whole RIAA curve, mother/father stamping generational loss of vinyl to add on to that. Believe me musicians, engineers and producers moaned for years that the final (vinyl) product didn't sound anywhere near as good as the initial tape master (which itself didn't sound as good as the the source mix). Modern digital (24 bit 96k) is generally much closer to the source than analogue ever was, but it won't make up for being a crap musician, engineer or producer who doesn't know how to use digital to its best effect. In fact it will highlight bad engineering/production/mastering even more than analogue because of its transparency. The irony of having all that dynamic headroom with 24 bit being lost in the normalising (digital compression) wars is not lost on me... What's quite interesting these days is that there has been a bit of a resurgence in the use of valve mics, ribbon mics, valve mic pre amps and mix line amp modules etc. for use in otherwise all digital chains, in an effort to "warm" things up. That is a creative production decision that is entirely valid, as long as one accepts that technically what you are doing is deliberately introducing non linear (although harmonic as opposed to enharmonic) artifacts in order to make it sound subjectively more pleasing. (Which is the same reason for using valve pre /power amps etc. in the listening chain.) So technically more accurate to the original source? Modern digital. More subjectively pleasing? Analogue still has a lot going for it, just remember that what you hear is not what it sounds like to the ear in situ. It is a representation that happens to have lots of anomalies that we find subjectively pleasing. I still have all my vinyl, it doesn't get played that often, but I still marvel at what those great bands/engineers and producers achieved with such a compromised recording medium.Originally Posted by Infrasonic
Note: CD sampling rate=44.1 khz
Robert Ludwig from Mixonline: http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_bob_ludwig/ Note: CD sampling rate=44.1 khzOriginally Posted by Artisan Fan
What did everyone pickup for the Black Friday Record Store Day Exclusives..?Originally Posted by constant struggle
I know that, but most people cant hear over 20 kHz anyway.Originally Posted by George
It's more about the level of resolution. Also, are you aware of the AES studies that show audible detection of harmonic overtones beyond 20khz? Are you aware of Jim Boyk's studies?Originally Posted by Artisan Fan
Resolution means the level of detail in the music one can hear.Originally Posted by Artisan Fan
Well, I would put my money on a top end CD player over a record player on that score. A CD player has a wider dynamic range and a better S/N ratio and doesn't suffer from wow & flutter artefacts for a start. That's before I get into resonance from the platter motor.Originally Posted by George
http://www.endino.com/graphs/Originally Posted by Infrasonic
I do semi-professional recording of classical musicians on the weekends. Been doing this since 1990 when I learned how to record at a friend's record label. I started recording in 24/96 in 1992 which is when it first came out. Now I record in 24/176. Based on that experience I would say that a good LP on a decent table is on par with this 24/176 recording. It is not on par with "redbook" CD which is 16/44.1. Good analog tape, in spite of its specs, is often even better than 24/176 (my recording buddy has reel machines). The divide between digital and analog has narrowed greatly with the improvements in both mics, mic preamps, and ADCs. Good analog still remains on par only, in my experience, with these "hirez" digital formats where the sampling rate is a multiple of the 44.1 khz rate of CD. Now as far as resonances with platters, speed stability, etc....that has largely been eliminated by modern turntables and is inaudible.Originally Posted by Artisan Fan
Robert Ludwig from Mixonline:Originally Posted by Artisan Fan
What's the production reality with DMM AF? How many mother/father generational stamp copies are there before the final vinyl pops out? How many record companies actually doing it this way rather than the old (crap) way?
What's the production reality with DMM AF? How many mother/father generational stamp copies are there before the final vinyl pops out? How many record companies actually doing it this way rather than the old (crap) way?Originally Posted by Infrasonic
LuxeSwap Auction - Manolo Blahnik Brown Wholecut Leather Loafers One of several examples of fine footwear offered this week by LuxeSwap at a $9.99 opening bid, no reserve auction, an scarce example of a mens shoe by Manolo Blahnik is crafted on a last reminiscent of Gaziano & Girlings fabled TG73 last. A very fine pair in near mint condition. 
