Author
|
Topic: The come back of the vinyl
|
Pete Richards
Master Film Handler
Posts: 302
From: Australia
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted December 10, 2013 05:09 PM
Oh I agree, there can be a nostalgia to process and an enjoyment of ritual. I enjoy the tactile ritual of cleaning film, mounting the reels and threading the projector. I used to enjoy selecting a record, removing it carefully from its sleeve and inspecting the surface, preparing the player and initiating the arm ready for playback.
That all has value and levels of pleasure and enjoyment, no argument.
I do get annoyed by people claiming that the audio quality of a vinyl pressing is better than a digital version, there is just no way it is possible when they are taken from the same master, the vinyl LP will have introduced distortion, and a smaller dynamic range. That is, it will sound less like 'being there in person' than the digital version will.
There are times when I want to enjoy the whole experience of getting out an album and playing it while reminiscing about time gone by, but there are also times when I want to *really* listen to a piece of music, and be as close to possible to the experience of being there at the recording session, and that will always be something like a Linn 24bit master recording on digital for me.
Two different experiences really.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted December 12, 2013 08:29 PM
Mike, I can see where you talk from. You are a musician therefore the most important for you is the beauty of music.
But there is another group, the so-called audio lovers (please note: they are not necessarily music lovers). This group is concerned more about the audio.
In vinyl vs. CD arguments, the most terminology often used to win vinyl is "warm" to say that digital does not have this. "warm" is often used by general audio lovers. But the more hi-end person will have these below terminologies:
quote:
What are these terms used to describe speakers (or sound reproduction ........) ?
Airy: Spacious. Open. Instruments sound like they are surrounded by a large reflective space full of air. Good reproduction of high-frequency reflections. High-frequency response extends to 15 or 20 kHz.
Bassy: Emphasized low frequencies below about 200 Hz.
Blanketed: Weak highs, as if a blanket were put over the speakers.
Bloated: Excessive mid-bass around 250 Hz. Poorly damped low frequencies, low-frequency resonances. See tubby.
Blurred: Poor transient response. Vague stereo imaging, not focused.
Boomy: Excessive bass around 125 Hz. Poorly damped low frequencies or low-frequency resonances.
Boxy: Having resonances as if the music were enclosed in a box. Sometimes an emphasis around 250 to 500 Hz.
Breathy: Audible breath sounds in woodwinds and reeds such as flute or sax. Good response in the upper-mids or highs.
Bright: High-frequency emphasis. Harmonics are strong relative to fundamentals.
Chesty: The vocalist sounds like their chest is too big. A bump in the low-frequency response around 125 to 250 Hz.
Clear: See Transparent.
Colored: Having timbres that are not true to life. Non-flat response, peaks or dips.
Crisp: Extended high-frequency response, especially with cymbals.
Dark: Opposite of bright. Weak high frequencies.
Delicate: High frequencies extending to 15 or 20 kHz without peaks.
Depth: A sense of distance (near to far) of different instruments.
Detailed: Easy to hear tiny details in the music; articulate. Adequate high-frequency response, sharp transient response.
Dull: See dark.
Edgy: Too much high frequencies. Trebly. Harmonics are too strong relative to the fundamentals. Distorted, having unwanted harmonics that add an edge or raspiness.
Fat: See Full and Warm. Or, spatially diffuse - a sound is panned to one channel, delayed, and then the delayed sound is panned to the other channel. Or, slightly distorted with analog tape distortion or tube distortion.
Full: Strong fundamentals relative to harmonics. Good low-frequency response, not necessarily extended, but with adequate level around 100 to 300 Hz. Male voices are full around 125 Hz; female voices and violins are full around 250 Hz; sax is full around 250 to 400 Hz. Opposite of thin.
Gentle: Opposite of edgy. The harmonics - highs and upper mids - are not exaggerated, or may even be weak.
Grainy: The music sounds like it is segmented into little grains, rather than flowing in one continuous piece. Not liquid or fluid. Suffering from harmonic or I.M. distortion. Some early A/D converters sounded grainy, as do current ones of inferior design. Powdery is finer than grainy.
Grungy: Lots of harmonic or I.M. distortion.
Hard: Too much upper midrange, usually around 3 kHz. Or, good transient response, as if the sound is hitting you hard.
Harsh: Too much upper midrange. Peaks in the frequency response between 2 and 6 kHz. Or, excessive phase shift in a digital recorder's lowpass filter.
Honky: Like cupping your hands around your mouth. A bump in the response around 500 to 700 Hz.
Mellow: Reduced high frequencies, not edgy.
Muddy: Not clear. Weak harmonics, smeared time response, I.M. distortion.
Muffled: Sounds like it is covered with a blanket. Weak highs or weak upper mids.
Nasal: Honky, a bump in the response around 600 Hz.
Piercing: Strident, hard on the ears, screechy. Having sharp, narrow peaks in the response around 3 to 10 kHz.
Presence: A sense that the instrument in present in the listening room. Synonyms are edge, punch, detail, closeness and clarity. Adequate or emphasized response around 5 kHz for most instruments, or around 2 to 5 kHz for kick drum and bass.
Puffy: A bump in the response around 500 Hz.
Punchy: Good reproduction of dynamics. Good transient response, with strong impact. Sometimes a bump around 5 kHz or 200 Hz.
Rich: See Full. Also, having euphonic distortion made of even-order harmonics.
Round: High-frequency rolloff or dip. Not edgy. Sibilant: "Essy" Exaggerated "s" and "sh" sounds in singing, caused by a rise in the response around 6 to 10 kHz.
Sizzly: See Sibilant. Also, too much highs on cymbals.
Smeared: Lacking detail. Poor transient response, too much leakage between microphones. Poorly focused images.
Smooth: Easy on the ears, not harsh. Flat frequency response, especially in the midrange. Lack of peaks and dips in the response.
Spacious: Conveying a sense of space, ambiance, or room around the instruments. Stereo reverb. Early reflections.
Steely: Emphasized upper mids around 3 to 6 kHz. Peaky, nonflat high-frequency response. See Harsh, Edgy.
Strident: See Harsh, Edgy.
Sweet: Not strident or piercing. Delicate. Flat high-frequency response, low distortion. Lack of peaks in the response. Highs are extended to 15 or 20 kHz, but they are not bumped up. Often used when referring to cymbals, percussion, strings, and sibilant sounds.
Telephone-like: See Tinny.
Thin: Fundamentals are weak relative to harmonics.
Tight: Good low-frequency transient response and detail.
Tinny: Narrowband, weak lows, peaky mids. The music sounds like it is coming through a telephone or tin can.
Transparent: Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise.
Tubby: Having low-frequency resonances as if you're singing in a bathtub. See bloated.
Veiled: Like a silk veil is over the speakers. Slight noise or distortion or slightly weak high frequencies. Not transparent.
Warm: Good bass, adequate low frequencies, adequate fundamentals relative to harmonics. Not thin. Also excessive bass or midbass. Also, pleasantly spacious, with adequate reverberation at low frequencies. Also see Rich, Round. Warm highs means sweet highs.
Weighty: Good low-frequency response below about 50 Hz. Suggesting an object of great weight or power, like a diesel locomotive.
You can see "warm" is only one of them.
I am not that kind of person. But I can understand why there is analog vs. digital discussion.
Same thing with us here, why there is a debate between celluloid vs digital presentation.
The movie lovers will focus on the story (they don't care what medium is used to shoot and screen the movie), while on the other side of the pond is the visual lovers where "collecting Matrix on super 8 although don't like the whole story"
And the later group is US now...
To sum up, on music there is music lovers vs audio lovers and on movie there is movie lovers vs visual lovers.
-------------------- Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted December 21, 2013 01:59 PM
Digital recording/playback is by definition an approximation to the original sound wave. If the sampling rate is infinite, then a digital recording should be as good as the analogue recording. But of course the sampling rate is nowhere near infinite, so electronic processing fills in the gaps between the sample wave peaks. Analogue recording and playback is, as Roger well states, an exact fingerprint of the sound wave and, given a very good turntable, should be superior.
-------------------- The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection, Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted December 23, 2013 05:34 AM
Paul is spot on there.
Although digital recording is now extremely advanced and really a return to analogue recording would be a regressive step.
The variable qualities when we get to hear recordings at home are down to the distribution format; CD was never really a great format because it requires too much compression.
That said, "studio quality" downloads should really be exceeding the best vinyl quality.
There is still every good reason to choose a vinyl pressing of a digital recording over the CD version, as less vital information is lost; the very information that actually contributes to the musicality. Putting aside frequency range and surface noise, which with a good pressing on a good turntable become mostly irrelevant, and vinyl still captures the really important audio information, very much exceeding the very limited 16 bit technology of CD.
DVD-Audio and SACD came closer to a really good digital distribution format, but failed because the mass-market didn't want them.
MP3, which now rules the download world, is atrocious; I'd go so far as to say it is so compressed, there is barely any real musical quality left.
But, as been already stated here, high quality downloads are pretty good; we just need more of them!
Michael, I know what you're saying, music is music, but I still reckon a hike in quality improves the perception of the recording. I mean, a film on super 8 is the same film on 35mm, but I dare say the 35mm offers something extra, if you get my point.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|