Beatles Mono vinyl box proves analogue superiority?

[Glacialpath]

So what you're saying is we like analogue recordings more because they distort the signal more than digital recordings?

If that's the case then surely we would absolutely HATE listening to live music? In that situation you've got no distortion at all because there is no recording system, so surely we should find that cold and lifeless and all those others things that digital recording has been accused of.

Not if the desk being used is and analogue desk and the sheer volume the audio is played to us distorts our hearing anyway. So though I like a "live sound" I don't like it at the volume we are made to listen to it at. That's why I ware ear plugs thus killing my experience. I went to seea couple of bands a Wembley earlier in the year. The first band "Delain" I found I didn't need my ear plugs as the vulume seemd correct for the sze of the venue and my position within it. By the time the Headline band "Within Temptation" got on stage, our collective boddy heat had over powered the air conditioning thus muddying the air in the venue. That distorts the sound reaching our ears and it is likely turned up also so I had to put my ear plugs in to feel comfortable.

There doesn't need to be a reording system in the chain just and analogue componant, like a valve compressor or any such other analogue out board. If the whole venue is a digital set up and the artist doesn't require any analogue equipment then you would be right untill the air become to warm for the true signal to travel through it to our ears.

Also with the live situation you have the visual aspect (unless someone is visually impared) which heightens the enjoyment of a live performence and is for most people the main reason for attending so it doesn't sit so well in the discussion.

A "Live" recording will have noise gates in place (these days anyway) so you won't get the same sensation as if you were there. They will likely gate out the venue reflections if its a huge venue because the delayed reflections going back down any front of house crowd mics would destroy the over all mix for home format. You an hear these gates open on some recording when the crowd cheers during a song thus opening the moise gate or if the crowd sing along.

 

[matt49]

In the case of the OP Beatles vinyl and the CD versions of the same master tapes if that how both formats were put together. Taking e copy of an analogue tape and making another analogue version on vinyl is going to distort the signal more than it already was if they can't put measures in place to filter out any extra distortion. The CD version will be identical to the tape. Because the vinyl sounds even warmer than the CD does people prefer it. It's the same as peopl ADDING [/b]bass to their soure signal when listening to music. It sounds more pleasent to our ears but it is wrong if you want to hear the signal as it was.

So with vinyl already adding that extra distortion/warmth/added bass meaning the listener doesn't have to add any EQ to achive this desired affect vinyl appears to be the better format.

I know it's not and I said that. I was trying to come up with a reason why people might prefer it. we have to remember only the band and the person mixing the music get to hear the original recorded sound. If the verage listener got to hear the orignal tape before listening to either the vinyl or the CD version I'm sure they would pick the CD version over the vinyl one as preference.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I see where you're coming from, and there may be some truth in what you say.

One reason that's often suggested for people preferring vinyl ro digital is that the mechanism of vinyl replay may introduce extra reverb. People like reverb: it sounds somehow more 'real', and of course adding reverb is a standard procedure at the mixing desk.

Matt

 

[Overdose]

So what you're saying is we like analogue recordings more because they distort the signal more than digital recordings?

If that's the case then surely we would absolutely HATE listening to live music? In that situation you've got no distortion at all because there is no recording system, so surely we should find that cold and lifeless and all those others things that digital recording has been accused of.

Not if the desk being used is and analogue desk and the sheer volume the audio is played to us distorts our hearing anyway. So though I like a "live sound" I don't like it at the volume we are made to listen to it at. That's why I ware ear plugs thus killing my experience.

I think the inferrence was a live accoustic set or maybe listening to an orchestra rather than an amped gig.

To suggest that live music sounds worse than post production over an analogue replay system is plain daft, but that's what some people are inferring in defence of their analogue systems.

 

[cheeseboy]

By the time the Headline band "Within Temptation" got on stage, our collective boddy heat had over powered the air conditioning thus muddying the air in the venue. That distorts the sound reaching our ears and it is likely turned up also so I had to put my ear plugs in to feel comfortable.

kind of. The soundwaves may become distorted, but it won't add distortion to the sound (like using a distortion pedal for example).

In the case of a live gig, this is why they have sound engineers - to remix on the fly the eq of the sound coming out to compensate for the change in sound caused by the amount of people and the venue.

Also, as a loose rule, the support band isn't going to have as many people there, and therefore the sound doesn't need to be as loud, as when the headliners arrive 99% of the people are now in the audidence section and that in itself is going to be a hell of a lot noisier and they will need to increase (and then should re eq) the volume to counteract that.

 

[The_Lhc]

So what you're saying is we like analogue recordings more because they distort the signal more than digital recordings?

If that's the case then surely we would absolutely HATE listening to live music? In that situation you've got no distortion at all because there is no recording system, so surely we should find that cold and lifeless and all those others things that digital recording has been accused of.

Quite.

Don't all audiophiles strive for the realistic reproduction of a live event?

Which in itself is pointless given that 90% of recorded music is not of "live" events anyway (few, if any studio albums will have been recorded "live").

 

[Glacialpath]

Yeah. If it's an unplugged performance then its of any kind of music this would be the most superior way of hearing music. It's the top of the pile. As long as the room acoustics work well for the music being played.

The_Lhc didn't state the kind of live event so I jumped to the conclusion it was an arena type event. My mistake.

The unplugged event is exactly what I have meant as the situation we all want to be in when listening to music at home. Having the recording sound exactly like we were there. That is very hard to achive correctly because of the way our ear nd brain percieve sound and can deal with shutting out/ignoring room refletions but caculating the size of the sound being made but then people on here just tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

If vinyl does appear to add space to audio. I put a live recording of Iron Maiden on my inlaws TT and thoug I have listened to the CD version many time I heard and X and Y field of sound along with the left an right.

That was on a reletively cheap system and I had no idea I would hear anything more that it sounding slightly warmer than the CD

So maybe this gets back to VOEs resoning. If I can't hear that 3 dimention space on my current Hi-Fi for arguments sake about £3000 worth of kit (I haven't paid that for it) but I can instantly hear it on a cheap vinyl set up. Which is superior?

And don't any one say my mind is being tricked and I can't actually hear the 3 dimensional space when I had no knowledge of this vinyl trate to effect my experience. I still know CD/digital is the better format but the question still stands.

 

[cheeseboy]

So maybe this gets back to VOEs resoning. If I can't hear that 3 dimention space on my current Hi-Fi for arguments sake about £3000 worth of kit (I haven't paid that for it) but I can instantly hear it on a cheap vinyl set up. Which is superior?

the thing is, that questions been answered over and over again, yet VOE refused to accept *everybody* who was giving the same answer. And that answer is that is it sounds superior to *you* as it's a totally subjective thing. The next person may disagree with you, it doesn't mean that either are right, which is where VOE's folly comes in becuase the impression that he gives on here is that what he thinks sounds best is best, both technically and subjectively and anybody elses opinion or facts are irrelivent, which is just not the case - in life let alone hifi.

 

[davedotco]

This is hugely entertaining.

We can simplyfy this, to a degree at least, in agreeing on what is the original musical event.

For studio recrdings it is the sound produced in the control room by the final mix, it is not the sound of the studio floor or a band on stage, it is an entirely artificial construct put together by the recording engineer and the producer.

Reproducing that sound in your home should be the aim of a hi-fi system, no room for ambiguety or personal preference. Until of course you hir reality.......!

Budgetary, acoustic and environmental factors come into play, we are unlikely to have a system that can match the bandwith, dynamic range and shear volume of the playback system so it is at this point that the element of choice and preference comes into play. With a hi-fi you can pick which particular compromises you are prepared to make for your setup in your room, this is, I think, entirely litigitmate and explains why different people can and do make different choices.

Unfortunately, in my view, this leads to the oft repeated mantra that, "if it sounds good it is good".

Personally I think that approach is deeply flawed and moves us away from the concept of high fidelity.

 

[Glacialpath]

Reflecting on my comment above. I think the last word "Superior" is out of context.

We have already established Digital is the more accurate "superior" of the 2 types of signal.

So maybe the way to say it so VOE migt agree, is Analogue is "better" at achiving our desired preference of sound with less effort than what it takes to reproduce a Digital signal as it originally sounded.

People will always have a preference of course but my "adding bass" analogy of the majority of the population listening to music suggests more people will got for the Analoge signal.

Having said that. That once majority of people seems to be listening low res MP3s quite happily on earphones that let out as much sound to the outside world as does go down the ear canal. They probably pile on loads of bass to compensate.

Then you have the younger people who will happily walk along with music blaring out of their phones with next to no low end frequencies being audible.

But yeah for the real listeners who aim for a "proper" sound, Vinly might be the preference.

 

[matt49]

But yeah for the real listeners who aim for a "proper" sound, Vinly might be the preference.

I'm not sure I understand why you've formed this view. If you look at album sales (including downloads) in 2013, vinyl made up 2% of the total. (Note that this is album sales, not sales of individual tracks.) The other 98% is made up of digital formats.

Another feature of the last couple of years is the rapid growth of subscription streaming, which is again digital. It seems to me that however you cut it, listeners prefer digital.

Now I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "real listeners", and I think that before you go any further, you need to define that term and show how it relates to the figures for album sales. How many of the albums are being bought by your "real listeners" and in what format are they buying them?

 

[cheeseboy]

So maybe the way to say it so VOE migt agree, is Analogue is "better" at achiving our desired preference of sound with less effort than what it takes to reproduce a Digital signal as it originally sounded.

nope sorry. The correct phrase is as simple as Analogue is preferred. that's it. You both keep talking about the signal as it originally sounded, but how do you know what it originally sounded like? That's one of the main reasons why that statement cannot be correct.

People will always have a preference of course but my "adding bass" analogy of the majority of the population listening to music suggests more people will got for the Analoge signal.

nope, that just means that more people prefer to hear more bass. Nothing to do with analogue and digital.

Having said that. That once majority of people seems to be listening low res MP3s quite happily on earphones that let out as much sound to the outside world as does go down the ear canal. They probably pile on loads of bass to compensate.

....ot they just prefer it with more bass.....

But yeah for the real listeners who aim for a "proper" sound, Vinly might be the preference.

ho hum. Statements like that just make those saying them seem like they have a superiority complex I'm afraid. You don't seem to be one of those people, but all the same it's a pretty crass thing to say.

 

[Glacialpath]

But yeah for the real listeners who aim for a "proper" sound, Vinly might be the preference.

I'm not sure I understand why you've formed this view. If you look at album sales (including downloads) in 2013, vinyl made up 2% of the total. (Note that this is album sales, not sales of individual tracks.) The other 98% is made up of digital formats.

Another feature of the last couple of years is the rapid growth of subscription streaming, which is again digital. It seems to me that however you cut it, listeners prefer digital.

Now I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "real listeners", and I think that before you go any further, you need to define that term and show how it relates to the figures for album sales. How many of the albums are being bought by your "real listeners" and in what format are they buying them?

Fair point.

" Real Listeners" Those who want the best sound from home audio equipment and portable devices and have a better understanding of what will achive that.

I spent last year commuting to London for my job and gaging audio gear I saw most people use (I can't account for what they have at home) I concluded they are just happy with what the have or fall for the media hype and want some of the action, not really researching if there is anything better and cheaper.

I myself was listening to Premium Spotify but on my Sennhhieser HD 202 headphones that when I compared to the headware most other people were using the HD 202 gave a much fuller and more realistic sound but are dirt cheap.

The reference to people prefering Vinyl had nothing to do with Album sales in my mind just if you were to present them with a vinyl version of an album against a digital one they would "prefer" the vinyl.

I can see the flaw in this comment as the album sales suggest. But do we know how much of that is convenience that they go for digital and how much is they just don't like the sound on vinyl.

So yeah it's not a very valied comment but do you see my point?

 

[The_Lhc]

Yeah. If it's an unplugged performance then its of any kind of music this would be the most superior way of hearing music. It's the top of the pile. As long as the room acoustics work well for the music being played.

Right, so by your own admission the live performance is best because there's no distortion due to the recording method but you then say that an analogue recording method would sound better BECAUSE of the additional distortion it introduces that isn't present in a digital recording, so in terms of distortion you would rate them best in this order:

Live, Digital, Analogue,

but in terms of "sounding best" in this order:

Live, Analogue, Digital.

Do you see the problem? Your two statements are completely contradictory. If, as you claim, we prefer analogue recordings because they have the most distortion then your second list should be:

Analogue, Digital, Live.

Your argument is completely illogical (captain).

 

[Overdose]

" Real Listeners" Those who want the best sound from home audio equipment and portable devices and have a better understanding of what will achive that.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that you or VOE are 'real listeners', based on the 'understanding' bit.

 

[cheeseboy]

" Real Listeners" Those who want the best sound from home audio equipment and portable devices and have a better understanding of what will achive that.

just to clear it up, you're not refering to "real listeners", you're just refering to people who are in to hifi buffs.

 

[Covenanter]

I think I'm a real listener in that I listen to a lot of music, nearly all classical, both on my hifi and at concerts. I'm lucky to live near Symphony Hall in Birmingham and hear a lot of live music in a wonderful acoustic. When I listen at home I want to hear something that is as close as I can get (within my budget) to what I hear at concerts. I think CDs do that having converted from vinyl to CDs in the late 70s early 80s and I had a top rate vinyl setup back then.

Chris

 

[Glacialpath]

Yeah. If it's an unplugged performance then its of any kind of music this would be the most superior way of hearing music. It's the top of the pile. As long as the room acoustics work well for the music being played.

Right, so by your own admission the live performance is best because there's no distortion due to the recording method but you then say that an analogue recording method would sound better BECAUSE of the additional distortion it introduces that isn't present in a digital recording, so in terms of distortion you would rate them best in this order:

Live, Digital, Analogue,

but in terms of "sounding best" in this order:

Live, Analogue, Digital.

Do you see the problem? Your two statements are completely contradictory. If, as you claim, we prefer analogue recordings because they have the most distortion then your second list should be:

Analogue, Digital, Live.

Your argument is completely illogical (captain).

LOL Shall I put it this way and try to clarify more.

In my obsevations in the past "most people have tended to add bass to their audio systems. I myself did this. I Still understand why people do/did this. Go back to when CD was the only commen digital format we listened to. These people may not have been aware vinyl has a tendancey to sound warmer than CDs do, thus if they listned to the vinyl version of a CD without adding extra bass might have prefered the vinyl version if they didn't know which format they were listening to because it sounds more appealing to the ear. Forget whether its better or not.

To answer your 3 lists. If the instruments are of such that they sound good unplugged (i'm going by a cheap drum kit against and good quality and well tuned kit and my preference of the 2 as my reference here) then I want to hear the "live/real life sound of the music.

I haven't listend to enough vinyl and done any comparisons between a reliable TT set up and and equal Digital/CD set up to truely give an answer over what order Analogue and Digital go in.

Knowing Digital is the accurate one of the 2 it would Live, Digital then Analogue all the time.

I can see so much of what I say is taken out of context to the whole picture. I already write posts that are too long and can't seem to get a valid point across in a smaller post.

Because and as Dave keep pointing out. Recordings are primarily what the person mixing it and anyone else who has a say in the final product wants then I will like a mix more if it sounds close to how I know instruments sound in real life. Unfortunately I listen to mostly Metal and the mix generally destroys what the acoustic instuments actually sound like. In some context I don't mind if the music is a curtain style like Industrial Metal (Meshuggah and Fear Factory are loose examples of the genra but make my point clearly if you hear the)

I prefer the mix of some of the older Deathmetal albums and Heavy Metal albums because they were recorded in an primarily Analogue domain or at least digital to Tape. To me these albums reprsesent the instruments more and not just a "Metal sound" that plagues the music today.

You have to take into account the kind of music I listen to when you read my posts. Equaly I should specify the the source of the sound is I'm describing as maybe we also need to clarify "Live" when mentioned in a post.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion of. " If, as you claim, we prefer analogue recordings because they have the most distortion then your second list should be:

Analogue, Digital, Live."

When I clearly pointed out Live can be distorted as you didn't specify unplugged to live micked up concert and I know digital is clean and for the 2nd list I also said I know digital is better but there is a preference for the fuller sound. In my observations in the past people seem to prefer the sound Analogue puts out.

Now I'm round different people and more of them are Hi-Fi enthusiasts I know they may not prefer Vinyl/Analogue. and would clearly go for the most accurate method of playback. Digital.

 

[Glacialpath]

Oh well. What would you constitute as real evidence of my understanding?

 

[Glacialpath]

No because not all people how enthuse over Hi-Fi know how things should sound. Some just gor for kit that produces a sound they like.

Real listeners IMO like to hear music from their prefered source to produce the same emotion or close to that of having the musician/instrument in the room and hearing the detail you would get if the band/musician was in the room.

What your deffinition of "Real Listeners"

 

[Glacialpath]

I think I'm a real listener in that I listen to a lot of music, nearly all classical, both on my hifi and at concerts. I'm lucky to live near Symphony Hall in Birmingham and hear a lot of live music in a wonderful acoustic. When I listen at home I want to hear something that is as close as I can get (within my budget) to what I hear at concerts. I think CDs do that having converted from vinyl to CDs in the late 70s early 80s and I had a top rate vinyl setup back then.

Chris

That's exactly what I was emplying a "Real Listener" is. Glad you get to witness lots of real performences. I'm sure your system does a great job of reproducing what you hear in the concert hall as long as the mix is faithfull to what was being played. That's out of our hand unfortunately.

 

[The_Lhc]

Yeah. If it's an unplugged performance then its of any kind of music this would be the most superior way of hearing music. It's the top of the pile. As long as the room acoustics work well for the music being played.

Right, so by your own admission the live performance is best because there's no distortion due to the recording method but you then say that an analogue recording method would sound better BECAUSE of the additional distortion it introduces that isn't present in a digital recording, so in terms of distortion you would rate them best in this order:

Live, Digital, Analogue,

but in terms of "sounding best" in this order:

Live, Analogue, Digital.

Do you see the problem? Your two statements are completely contradictory. If, as you claim, we prefer analogue recordings because they have the most distortion then your second list should be:

Analogue, Digital, Live.

Your argument is completely illogical (captain).

I prefer the mix of some of the older Deathmetal albums and Heavy Metal albums because they were recorded in an primarily Analogue domain

I'd be willing to bet they weren't.

or at least digital to Tape.

That's still digital. Just because it's "to Tape" doesn't make it in anyway analogue, you can record digital audio to video tape, it's still digital (that, in fact, is one of the reasons the CD format chose PCM at 44.1kHz because it was almost exactly the same as the format used for transferring studio recordings in digital on video tape).

To me these albums reprsesent the instruments more and not just a "Metal sound" that plagues the music today.

I suspect what you're talking about is dynamic range compression but that's a Mastering issue, it's nothing to do with the original studio recording (if it was labels wouldn't be able to put "remastered" versions of albums on 24-bit audio that have better DR than the CD version).

You have to take into account the kind of music I listen to when you read my posts.

No, I don't, this is purely hypothetical discussion, we're discussing a simple, "perfect" system (which doesn't exist), it's pointless confining the discussion to one persons choice of music or interpretation of "live" for exactly the reason that we won't agree on those things.

Equaly I should specify the the source of the sound is I'm describing as maybe we also need to clarify "Live" when mentioned in a post.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion of. " If, as you claim, we prefer analogue recordings because they have the most distortion then your second list should be:

Analogue, Digital, Live."

When I clearly pointed out Live can be distorted as you didn't specify unplugged

I didn't need to specify it, because YOU did, as you were the first person to mention a single instrument closely mic'ed being recorded by a digital system (which, for some reason, wouldn't sound the same as what we'd hear live), that could never be construed as meaning a fully amplified gig.

to live micked up concert and I know digital is clean and for the 2nd list I also said I know digital is better but there is a preference for the fuller sound. In my observations in the past people seem to prefer the sound Analogue puts out.

Some people do, some don't, why are the people you know more relevant?

 

[nopiano]

Given the context of the Original Post, viz 'The Beatles' recordings, even those lucky enough to have heard them live cannot possible recall that now. So the only meaningful comparison would be to hear the new LP and CD replayed alongside the mastertapes used for the mix (and even better, whatever earlier generation versions remain, if any).

Which brings the inevitable conclusion that the original recording from the Sixties has been so regularly remixed that I doubt much of the original remains. Or does it?

 

[Overdose]

Oh well. What would you constitute as real evidence of my understanding?

Your posts.

 

[Glacialpath]

Point 1

Morrisound studios used to use and anlalogue desk and out board to 24 track 2" reel to reel. Of course there was digital out board to. I think they have now since gone fully digital. and all the early Iron Maiden albums and other such bands would have been primerily analogue recording don't you think?

Point 2

Digital to tape 2" Reel to Reel turns it to analogue purely because the 2" tape is an analogue medium. Its just cleaner than recording through an analogue desk to tape.

The tape changes the characteristics of the audio Not massively and if you play that audio back from the reel to reel machine you are listening to an analogue version so it's not digital anymore. Until it's put back to a digital format but it's already been distorted.

I have a number of albums that have been recorded on a Pro Tools rigg and digital desk but the to 2" 24 track reel to reel to give it that "Analogue" feel. At the end of the day on CD its digital but has been passed through an Analogue medium.

Point 3

Sorry I'm not talking about limiting or compression. I'm talking about the difference between a triggered sound against an organic sound. The earlier albums only had the kick drums triggered blended in with the organic kick sound, the rest of the kit was a normal acoustic recording.

These days most of the time all the drum sounds are replaced so the only organic part you hear of the kit is the cymbals. If there is a rare occasion they go old skool and record the drums organically it is the compression and limiting that kills the mixs as you say. I am fully aware of this and hate it with a passion.

Point 4

I'm not confining my posts to just my kind of music and if you want to fully get where I'm coming from then you do need to take into account the background of my thought process. And where in thi post has "the perfect" system been mentioned. The discussion is why people might prefer analogue over digital. I don't know what thread you think you are reading but clearly not this one. Also "Live for the most part is considdered and amplified concert. Even unplugged use a PA system some times maybe only for the vocals.

Classical, or say a pub gig can be classed as truely unplugged or an ensamble performece in a small venue where no amplification is needed. These are live of course because you aren't listening to a "Recording" the very opposite of live.

Point 5

Because you weren't aware of my background thought process when I wrote "Live" you came to you own view of Live. Theres nothing wrong with that but it means you misunderstood my point. Hence my suggestion you need to know my my full trin of thought.

Point 6

I'm going by my observations and that is what I have stated. The people I know have nothing to do with the relevence of the conversation. I have no idea why you would even say that, what an absurd thought if you don't mind me saying. No offence intended.

 

[davedotco]

Historically studios did not just turn from analogue to digital overnight.

Digital equipment started to be introduced from the late 70s onward. It would be quite common for the tracking to be all analog, as indeed was the final mix. It was only at this stage that the signal was digitised to produce a 2 track digital master.

It is also worth remembering that by the early 80s, digital effects were commonplace and digital delay lines were routinely used for vinyl mastering. Pure analogue was as rare as hens teeth by this time.

On another matter, we had to replace each note of an out of tune drumkit with a sampled kit. Every single beat for an entire concert.

And what is more, we had to do it live, in a gig, in front of an audience, oh, and we had to do it without the drummer noticing!