I think we got pretty proficient in audio measurements over the years.
Even properly dithered 16bit audio surpasses vinyl in terms of objective quality by several magnitudes. The hype over analog is, well what it is - a hype. Even if someone could record unchanged analog signal with unrestricted phase, frequency response, dynamic range and crossover - how viable it really is? CD quality comes so close to limits of human hearing, it's not much worth "hunting" for anything better, if the only objective is listening to it. For processing, sure some extra headroom is fine.

I was born in the autumn years of vinyl, don't get me wrong, it's a magical medium for audio storage that brings so many warm feelings. But on objective field of comparison, it can't and won't hold its own against PCM and RedBook.

Commercially available records may sound better compared to CD releases, but that's because you can't squash the dynamics so much on vinyl as on CD

 

i was going to ask if anyone here has played or touched a real mellotron,i love it's organic feeling...

 

nevermind,you don't understand what i'm asking.

 

if anyone here wants to discuss the sound of the mellotron later today or tomorrow related to any kind of music especially to Morcheeba's sound let me know,thanks in advance :
http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/morcheebas-favourite-music-software-593671

 

@Talmi Although i 've been "crossing swords" with Lambchop too recently, he is NOT that guy my friend. Let's all chill and try to be friends again mate.
@Von_Steyr The Bad Santa avatar is lovely heheheh...
@Andrew All scientific evidence implies cd sounds better than vinyl. On the other hand analog is not limited by sampling bitrates. The thing is, enjoying music is not a scientific process. Most people who enjoy the vinyl sound better than cds, explain it as warmer and more "human" or "organic". It is obvious that most vinyl lovers, especially the 12" single lovers, like the added distortion on the low frequencies and the smoother analog transition between "jumps" of frequency+amplitude. I admit that after tedious A/B over the years, the crescendos of an orchestra such as the OP posted, still sound BETTER on vinyl to me. If i was to top this in analog's favor, i have attended -if not for only once- a big classical recording (110 piece symphonic orchestra) and the Studer multitrack tape sound was exceptional, perhaps the best i 've heard ever in person.
Now i try to keep an open mind, and i have listened to some great recordings on SACD and this digital medium has a much more smoother transparent sound than the average cd (mainly due to a much higher res).
So overall imho, yes vintage vs digital may be a hoax for the most part, but analog vs digital hmmm.... is still under consideration for me, at least for the time being, because,
There are some things that should be certain for all:
1) Digital is an ongoing process, still young and has a future, while analog, for the most part has reached its technological peak many years ago.
2) While the best analog gear ever produced resides in the 70s and 80s, that era is also synonymous with -arguably- the best and most expensive music productions ever, regardless the genre.
3) Music as conceived by humans is as much a cerebral process as it is metaphysical and subjective, hence every track tells a different tale to each and any of us. Any amount of people acknowledging to find the same "special" characteristics imprinted on a recording or even a live band for that matter, in fact agree to having something in common as individuals.
4) If all you needed to make music successfully was musical knowledge and some physics, math and psycho-acoustics, musician engineers would be the only ones in the music charts, ever.

Thnx for baring with me Cheers all

 

Last edited: Dec 5, 2017

I appreciate you @taskforce , I think you're one of the most valuable member of this board. Always helpfull and never trolling or being disrespectfull to anyone, I also consider you a friend. No one ever had to tell me " @taskforce is a good guy". I've read your topics, like I read the ones of @Lambchop , and I made my opinion regarding you, like I made mine regarding @Lambchop . So on this one subject we'll just have to agree to disagree. I hope you don't view this as a sign of disrespect.
I agree with @Von_Steyr (and man I agree, once again great choice of avatar) a few recent new members mostly shine by the negativity they bring to the table. It's a great community, but it's fragile, and lately it's been fed with drama that could wreck it. I've said my piece on the topic, I'm a grown up and I'll just ignore the dude from now on. This situation will arise again though (although not with me anymore), I'm pretty sure about it. I would be glad if I'm proven wrong.

 

Last edited: Dec 5, 2017

Audiosex,greatest community ever.

 

@taskforce - I commented on objective points of this analog vs. digital comparison, not subjective. There was this saying, I don't remember exactly, "Caruso makes the shellac, or the shellac makes Caruso", implying that the medium might have helped him to reach his signature voice.
Distortion is not always undesirable, euphonic distortion and even harmonic distortion is partly what makes the "analog" sound.
That's why I commented on the experience of handling and playing vinyl.

You're right sound engineers rarely make music and use pure tones to test the equipment, but what is music if not series of tones with various timbres and percussion noises? If an equipment measures well, it's going to perform well.
Meyer & Moran did an extensive study into SACD and out of hundreds of tested subjects, none was able to identify a 44/16 downsampling box inserted into the signal chain without raising the volume unreasonably high.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

I was also under impression that hires sound better, until I built myself a tool of truth - switchbox, able to switch input signals within microseconds. Hours were spent with various equipment, and the result of ABX was me guessing 48% of the time.

 

For the most part, I agree w/ OP. It's kinda the golden age of music tech, right here right now. Rly last couple years have been Santa wrapped in a fairytale inside ur birthday. Or smthn.

Well, there is that whole kinda analog distorts, digital clips thing that I think digital will never get right. And those old valve monitors are awesome, some of the best sounding gear I've heard. But almost everything else is kinda perception / placebo / bullshit. Ya know, those gold optical leads will make ur sound much warmer etcs...

 

Just so i am clear, my post was referring to the effect of music on human ears and not what it is, because it's what you perfectly described.
I totally agree with almost all, except there is a small hole in that test, which themselves mention too. Some recordings may exceed the dynamic range that 16bit-44.1khz permits. And i would want to know under which criteria (if there were any), the people subjected to the test were picked.
Other than that i'm all fine with all the comfort digital equipment has provided me with and i love my analog signals too as well.
Oh, and i would love to build an input switchbox meself too, you now have opened a can of worms hahahah.
Always a pleasure hearing from ya
Cheers

 

Last edited: Dec 5, 2017