Re: DAT vs. CDR's


Subject: Re: DAT vs. CDR's
corynrrsmethurst@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Fri Oct 22 2004 - 08:15:05 EDT


The real problem in IMV is that CDR's have become the defacto standard for
diffussion, but sound far inferior to DAT when I have done A / B comparisons
- particularly as regards the bottom end. I generally think it is better
to take my Powerbook with me when I'm doing the diffussion - but if this
was impossible I'd rake my DAT...

crrs

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:43:34 +0100
>To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
>From: Richard Wentk <richard@skydancer.com>
>Subject: Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound
>Reply-To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
>
>
>At 01:44 22/10/2004 +0430, you wrote:
>
>>Jay wrote:
>>>Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the vinyl records produce better

>>>sound quality then electric tapes and CD (when I say quality I mean
>>>frequency range).
>>
>>The idea that vinyl has unlimited frequency range is a myth; a groove

>>needs to be physically cut on the record, and in practice, physics imposes
>
>>pretty serious limitations. I can't verify the numbers, but, from e.g.

>>electronic musician (psbg.emusician.com/ar/emusic_pressing_matters/)
>>" Engineers concur, however, that the practical upper limits of a vinyl
>
>>record are in the range of 16 to 18 kHz for albums destined for
>>audiophile-quality systems and 8 to 16 kHz for the average reproduction
>
>>system. The upper limit depends on the physical position of the music
on
>
>>the record itself as well."
>
>Not to mention limited bass response. Try switching a strong 40Hz
>fundamental between channels on vinyl and see what happens. It's not
>unheard of when mastering for vinyl to sum bass frequencies to mono, to

>prevent the stylus leaping out of the groove.
>
>Not many people realise that vinyl goes through an extreme equalisation

>known as RIAA compensation. If you plug the output from a cartridge
>straight into a preamp you get a kind of tinny rattle with hardly any bass.
>
>All vinyl hardware includes an RIAA preamp to pull the bass back into line.
>
>But the bass is *so* close to the noise floor on most real hardware what
>
>you get is a kind of rumbly mush with occasional pitched transients.
>
>For many people, that *is* the vinyl sound. It's not an unattractive
>effect, but it's nowhere close to accurate reproduction of the studio master.
>
>>There are different qualities of vinyl and different kinds of digital.

>>Even CD-standard improves on vinyl in dynamic range and transparency (less
>
>>noise, no crackle and pop), among other things. I suppose you could argue
>
>>that the characteristics of vinyl can mask the poor quality of bad audio,
>
>>but that seems a bit specious.
>
>No, I think it's a fair point. My (simple) subjective experience is that
>I
>can enjoy music more when some of the detail is missing. Through some
>magical process my brain fills in what it wants hear. I remember listening
>
>to a number of former old cassette favourites on CD for the first time
and
>
>thinking I didn't like the clean version nearly as much.
>
>It's also amazing what you can get used to. When I try to listen to vinyl
>
>now, all I hear are the crackles and pops. Before CD I more or less
>successfully managed to filter them out.
>
>>CD is still limited, but standards are opening up to higher resolution.
>
>16/44.1 was always a compromise, and was understood as a compromise right
>
>from the earliest days of Red Book. There are fundamental technical issues
>
>to do with aliasing and reconstruction filter design which make it hard
and
>
>expensive to do 16/44.1 well. On cheap equipment this leads to that
>horrible crunchy 'digital' sound we all know and loathe, and which vinyl
>
>conspicuously lacks. But even on good equipment low level detail still
gets
>
>mangled because any 16 bit system doesn't have the resolution to reproduce
>
>it properly. So ambience especially sounds rougher than it should.
>
>24/96 is a huge improvement, although there's really no such thing as a

>true 24bit system, even at the high end. There isn't a circuit on earth

>that's genuinely capable of 144dB of dynamic range and noise performance,
>
>although I suppose you could go all L33T modder and try to build something
>
>cooled with liquid nitrogen to lower the noise floor. On most hardware

>there are typically there are 20/22 useful bits, which is still a huge

>improvement on 16.
>
>>But standards mean nothing if the original recording isn't well-made,
and
>
>>there's a lot of bad mixing and mastering going on these days, which may
>
>>be fueling the 'analog is better than digital' debate.
>
>There's a horrible tendency now to push everything into a kind of
>overcompressed noise shaped glop. The new Jean Michel Jarre CD (Aero) is
>a
>perfect example. It's fat, it's smooth, it's rounded, but it also sounds
>
>obscenely bloated and unrealistic, and the sound never gets a chance to

>breathe.
>
>There's also an emerging consensus that analogue has its uses as an audio
>
>effect. Albums are regularly mastered to 1/2" or 1" tape to get that fat
>
>rounded sound as a deliberate distortion effect. Some bands even cut loops
>
>and breaks to vinyl for the same reasons.
>
>Richard
>
>

__________________________________________________________________
Win 12 amazing weekend breaks, one every month for a year to Dublin, Milan,
the Alps, Paris and beyond

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/competitions/brilliant_weekends.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:04 EST