Re-Kindle the flames ?????
- Thread starter twich54
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
RichTeer
Well-known member
No worries; it's just PBS' policy I guess, which is a bit weird given that we get PBS up here, *Shrug* Oh well, I'll just have to try to remember to watch that clip next time I'm Stateside (next month).
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Oh Twitch, one more thing.
I forgot to tell you that I reserve to right to make substitutions, at my sole discretion, as deemed appropriate.
And no, you don't have veto power.
Best,
Gordon
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Jonathan, doesn't the RIAA curve in the phono amp reverse the effects of the RIAA curve applied to the cutting of the record? I think the curve applied when creating the record allows the dynamic range to be restored when the curve is applied in the phono amp. In other words, the master tape may have 80 db or so dynamic range, but an equalization curve is applied prior to putting the tracks onto the vinyl, as the media can't handle the dynamic range, but the dynamic range is restored as the curve is applied in the phono amp, so that whatever was compressed (mostly bass) could be restored to near master tape levels.
Sambob2
Well-known member
Yes, almost...
RIAA is encoded during cutting of the record master, and decoded during playback, however it is not necessarily a compression. It is an emphasis and de-emphasis of the frequencies much like an equalizer does. Compression is different in that it limits either the loudest passages - hence limiter, or increases low level passages as well as limits high level passages - hence compression.
The RIAA made it possible to put more music on a record than would be possible without it. Mostly due to the physical size of the undulating groove which has to be cut for lower frequencies. Also, most cartridges couldn't handle tracking the grooves without excessive distortion. With the RIAA curve encoded - and reduced low frequencies - the stylus had a much easier time of tracking and left the boosting of the lower frequencies back to the original recorded levels up to the decoder built into the preamp.
It is important to have an accurate RIAA decoder built into your pre-amplifier or phono preamplifier. Most these days track or "mirror" the industry standard RIAA to within 0.25 dB. Older sets from early years always boosted about the RIAA deviation spec., today’s units can easily do better with their eyes closed!
Years ago, (mid 1970's?) there was a short run of albums recorded with true compression encoding. I wonder how many of you can remember this one... These albums could only be played back thru a DBX decoder to properly decode and restore the dynamics to the original levels. It was short lived as I remember only a few labels adopted the idea. An external processor had to be purchased to make this work. DBX encoding and decoding was much more adaptable and used in analog tape recording. I still have my DBX units from back then for tape and records...but I don't have any of those albums!
Sam
Last edited:
Sambob2
Well-known member
That's not right.......(The picture that is...)
Hi Steve, you are right that the phono pre-amp will invert the cutting room EQ, but all that does is get back to a similar freq. response.
The dynamics can't be recovered. And limiters (at a minimum) are used on the mastering to ensure that those boosted highs (and general level) do not go above the medium's threshold.
BTW- master tape Dynamic range is generally in the 70's (80db is with Dolby-A on 1" pristine master tape). Most are in the mid to high-sixties, and some archival tape plays back at less than 50dB. It's pretty lossy (unfortunately, as a lot of great music is on those archival tapes).
As Sambob notes, the only way to pass higher DNR was to use a compression-expander process like DBX.
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Thanks for the replies. I always used dbx when recording to cassette tapes. dbx used to advertise 90db dynamic range. One question though, I thought one of the reasons for using RIAA was that the bass notes, if applied without RIAA, would cause such large grooves in the vinyl that cartridges couldn't track. Then the RIAA curve, applied in the phono amp would restore that bass. What you guys are saying, I think, is that only the bass frequency response is then restored, but not the dynamics of that bass. That's where I get a little confused, because I think that if a cartridge couldn't track the bass note, it is because it would be too dynamic. So then it would follow that if the preamp curve restored the bass note, then the dynamics of the bass notes would be restored also. It's hard to see that it is just frequency without dynamics. Does that make any sense?
Looks like the test was; can you hear the difference in the middle of the song, changing between digital and analog every 20 seconds or so - with headphones on.
Weird test, not sure what they were out to prove.
In the comments section (first video link) a film maker said to record in analog and edit in digital, seemed like a reasonable suggestion (for most pop music ending up in MP3's).
Weird test, not sure what they were out to prove.
In the comments section (first video link) a film maker said to record in analog and edit in digital, seemed like a reasonable suggestion (for most pop music ending up in MP3's).
tonepub
Senior Member
So, how many time you have you been in a real recording studio and have actually heard an album that's been commercially produced, like say at MoFi, Music Matters, etc., and actually heard a master tape of something that we all have access to?
You lost me when you said "Pro Tools".
I hate the digital vs. analog debate. Digital has come a long way and it's gotten really good, but it's still digital. Even 24/96 and even 24/192.
Analog is a major pain to seek out, set up and get right. But having been in on a number of mastering sessions, the analog stuff still brings the music home in a more lifelike way than digital does, every time.
The gap has gotten much closer and I'd much rather have great digital than mediocre analog (and I've heard plenty of that...), but if you're talking the ultimate in performance, analog still rules.
All the techie stuff is pretty meaningless at that point.
We can argue to the minutiae till the cows come home, but I've never had any listener here, even the most uneducated (in the realm of audiophile stuff) listener has always heard digital and analog back to back and preferred analog by a long shot.
Strip the 20 layers of digital processors out of your system and you'd hear the difference too. Analog would be redundant in your system because you've got so many layers of processing, it's all digital anyway.
I had the same luck when we reviewed the Meridian 808.2 and the DSP7200's. Even though it had analog inputs, once it went through the DSP's in the powered speakers (even though they had analog amplifiers) it really didn't have a meaningful difference to warrant wasting time with analog in a system like that.
So, in the end, digital is really good these days, but if you want the ultimate and you are willing to put up with the ritual and seek out the best software, analog still wins the day and any real recording engineer will agree with me on this....
RichTeer
Well-known member
Well said, sir!
David Matz
Well-known member
Most cd's are pretty bad while analog is a pain and takes a lot of space. Personally, I don't care about the underlying technology one bit even if it's a a couple of elves playing in my room.
One thing that will happen in the next 1, 3, 5, or 7 years is that most of the music worth its salt will be re-released in high definition digital or in a Blu Ray format that will download off the internet. I have heard some high resolution digital that has real timbre, texture, clarity, transients, focus, air, dynamic range, etc. Quality DACs will rule the day. We will then be able to trash our vinyl rigs and cd players.
It's really about great music...
One thing that will happen in the next 1, 3, 5, or 7 years is that most of the music worth its salt will be re-released in high definition digital or in a Blu Ray format that will download off the internet. I have heard some high resolution digital that has real timbre, texture, clarity, transients, focus, air, dynamic range, etc. Quality DACs will rule the day. We will then be able to trash our vinyl rigs and cd players.
It's really about great music...
In big name studios like that, none.
In a ProTools HD based studio: two different ones, with several times in my friends studio.
Maybe there's some magic the big name studios have that smaller ones don't, but live music played by live players is the same, as is the mic and preamp gear used. My friends studio uses some pretty expensive gear ($3K mics, $4K analog mic preamps, etc.)
Oh, ok it's just the most popular recording platform on earth: Digidesign Pro Tools.
Used to make a lot of big name recordings.
I'm detecting a bias here, which is fine. If you prefer the 'sound' imparted by analog process, then more power to you.
But I'm not sold that it is 'more accurate' than well-done digital. Science has been hacking away at this topic for a while, and we have some pretty good research that shows that 24/96 and above is pretty much indistinguishable from 'live' (as in ABX-ing a Mic and that mic going through A/D-D/A cycle at those rates).
And as you note, it's much easier (and cheaper) to set up and configure a well-done digital system than it is an ultimate-analog system
I think this reflects a common listener bias for rolled off highs in most small rooms. No coincidence that the Audyssey target curve not only has a dip at 2.5Khz, but that it rolls off gently above 10Khz.
Again preference vs accuracy.
Now, now ... let's not get snarky
I have between my test listed above and my speakers:
Fully dual-differential DACS (4 DACS per channel) in the AVP, totally clock-synched to the decoded PCM data. As I said about as close to a 'perfect' digital transport as one can get.
My speaker processors (vs passive crossovers) that do 24/96 A/D-D/A.
Based on my decade+ of testing, experimenting and measuring has shown that this speaker processor beats the passive crossovers by orders of magnitude in frequency and time-domain accuracy. This is absolutely an area where 'analog' loses, big time.
Oh not so sure about recording engineers agreeing with your there. The majority of work is in digital these days and most well-regarded names work completely in the digital domain.
My favorite producer, musician and mastering artist is Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree, and he works in the digital domain, and his High-rez albums on DVD-A are about as close to perfection as one could wish for.
You should hear them on my system someday :music:
Last edited:
you know JonFo I will not argue with your knowledge but as a matter of personal taste I would not let that Audyssey technology anywhere near the signal that comes from my analog gear no matter what the charts say.
and BTW I will would have to say that a large portion of the material being produced today sounds like pure crap to my ears anyway so it really does not surprise me that the engineers have chosen the easiest possible methods of dealing with it. it is my understanding that many of the musicians of today could not even perform if it where not for the help of digital apparatus.
and BTW I will would have to say that a large portion of the material being produced today sounds like pure crap to my ears anyway so it really does not surprise me that the engineers have chosen the easiest possible methods of dealing with it. it is my understanding that many of the musicians of today could not even perform if it where not for the help of digital apparatus.
Last edited:
Jimna
Well-known member
that just tells me that your seeing bad music/musicians. i see at least 4 live shows a month and none of the artists i see need anything but amplification to play a fantastic performance. britney speers needs digital help, but bands like north mississippi allstars need bourbon & women, thats all.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Less filling.
No.
Tastes great.
The horse has been beaten to death.
Long live the dead horse.
It's the music and each individuals emotional connection with the music that matters, regardless of the medium.
All the rest is meaningless BS.
GG
Less filling.
No.
Tastes great.
The horse has been beaten to death.
Long live the dead horse.
It's the music and each individuals emotional connection with the music that matters, regardless of the medium.
All the rest is meaningless BS.
GG
Last edited:
With enough bourbon and enough women, I bet no one could tell the difference between digital and analog.......Okay, maybe Tom but only if he doesn't get enough bourbon.
I might suggest, and this is only a suggestion because he can do it easier than the rest of us, save Jonfo. Tonepub could try listening again to a really really really good 5.1 surround sound system with really really really good DVD audio and SACD digital software, just to see how far HiRez digital has come.
I have to agree with Jonfo, some of Steve Wilson's work would fit the bill. He has just released a couple of killer albums and he has more on the way.
The Digital Domain has some of the same problems as analog. The software can be stellar or really poor. So I would think it would be important to use stellar digital to see how far it has come. The only problem I see is that you really couldn't do an A/B comparison because the DVD Audio and SACD in MCH is what is and two channel is what it is, not the same. But that's okay, just listening or experiencing the MCH music if done right should be enough to see how far Digital has come and maybe even where it is going.:music:
With that said, I don't want analog to leave either, it keeps many people from jumping off the deep end. Which is noble enough to keep it for another 100 years. I guess I am just one in the crowd that likes HiRez music .:devil:
I might suggest, and this is only a suggestion because he can do it easier than the rest of us, save Jonfo. Tonepub could try listening again to a really really really good 5.1 surround sound system with really really really good DVD audio and SACD digital software, just to see how far HiRez digital has come.
I have to agree with Jonfo, some of Steve Wilson's work would fit the bill. He has just released a couple of killer albums and he has more on the way.
The Digital Domain has some of the same problems as analog. The software can be stellar or really poor. So I would think it would be important to use stellar digital to see how far it has come. The only problem I see is that you really couldn't do an A/B comparison because the DVD Audio and SACD in MCH is what is and two channel is what it is, not the same. But that's okay, just listening or experiencing the MCH music if done right should be enough to see how far Digital has come and maybe even where it is going.:music:
With that said, I don't want analog to leave either, it keeps many people from jumping off the deep end. Which is noble enough to keep it for another 100 years. I guess I am just one in the crowd that likes HiRez music .:devil:
Sambob2
Well-known member
The bass frequencies are attenuated in the recording process...this attenuation is seen by the cutter head making the master. Upon playback, the attenuated signal is boosted to its (or as close to its) original level, not necessarily the original analogue tape recorded level.
Remember there are a few layers of compression and limiting going on in the entire recording process. It starts first at the initial source be it a vocal microphone, a direct input from an electrical instrument, a miked signal from an amplified instrument, or an acoustic miked source.
The amount of processing can very greatly for any given engineer, and also what kind of signal it is and how hard the engineer hits the tape (I'm assuming analogue recording since it's the only one I know), for a lot of Pop and TV or Radio commercials, severe compression so it’s always loud.
There is also a choice of Dolby noise reduction or DBX, the differences between both were discussed in another post I wrote here. One affects the frequency response recorded to tape while the other is dynamic related. Both encode then decode the signal.
Engineers usually don't want to apply to much processing to the multi-track tape (16, 24 TRACK). Why, because it is impossible to undo without creating other artifacts. However some processing is required to get a manageable, undistorted signal to the tape. As far as applying equalization, at the multi-track level you want to record a flat distribution of the instruments signal so you can "flavor" it later...hence a more manageable signal. Anyway, once a multi-track tape is completed to the artists and producers liking, the two track stereo master can be made. You guessed it, when a mastering engineer takes a multi-track tape and mixes it down to two tracks, there is a final limiter put on the signal going to the two track recording machine. This can also be Dolby or DBX encoded in addition to limiting the peak transient signals. It's second generation at this point, which means that if you have tape hiss in the multi-track, you're getting it recorded onto the two track along with the two track machines induced tape hiss...most well aligned noise reduction or DBX can reduce this to almost inaudible levels, but it is still second generation.
Now we get to the record cutter. Not all cutter engineers are happy with the levels any recording engineer sends to them. They know well what their cutter head can handle, velocity and rate, and it usually means another level of peak limiting...in addition to the RIAA applied. (Keep in mind there are a few variations in the RIAA across the globe). All this applied and whala, we get a record.
Once at home we rely on the built in RIAA circuitry in our preamps to faithfully reproduce the encoded RIAA emphasis.
So you are right in saying it affects the bass signals to allow our cartridges to track better, it's the dynamics of the groove, the physical size of the grooves undulations which are reduced. This does relate to the reproduced dynamics, the larger the groove modulation the larger the signal the cartridge produces, but you only have so much to work with until a cartridge cannot handle the velocity it needs to track the groove. That's why the bass is attenuated to a level of -20dB at 20 Hz. at the cutter head for the master. Upon playback our systems bring back that attenuated level +20dB at 20Hz to restore it to the original level. By the way this attenuation is a gradual slope starting from 1KHz down to 20Hz. A similar emphasis is placed on high frequencies but they are boosted upon cutting the record master. The slope starts at 1KHz and continues to 20KHz. Google it to see more, there's got to be a ton of info on this topic out there.
The dynamic range is not increased to give more dynamics than what was originally sent to the record lathe itself. Remember the dynamic range of a record is not the greatest, around 60 - 65dB, I'm guessing myself on that one. So do the math here, if you have a 20Hz signal on that record at 65dB (highly unlikely but just for the sake of argument), it is attenuated by the RIAA curve by -20dB to a level of 45dB. When you play it back, the encoder in your preamp boosts it +20dB at 20Hz to 65dB.
Here's my disclaimer...I did not cut records for a living. I did get to take a course on making a record master and cut one recording to a record, which was back in 1979. I did however get to work in a recording studio where a lot of my knowledge comes from...but only to the extent of analogue tape...there was no such thing as digital anything or Pro-Tools anything. (I don't work in a recording studio now). I don't play an instrument and I don't sing except in my car by myself! Most of the recordings we made at that studio were R&B, POP, Gospel (James Cleveland), some classical, demo, and cover band stuff. The recording Engineer I worked with was Andrew Wallace, a great guy with a fantastic sense of humor and a very good engineer. Andy went on to engineer and mix bands like Nirvana and Stained to name a few. I went on to have a child - well the wife had the kid - and I become a mechanical engineer. I make stuff for (outer) space and enjoy this hobby a lot! Some of my numbers could be off a little but the idea is there. I hope this helped some it's been a long time.
Sam
Last edited:
gordonmenninger
Well-known member
wow, pretty fascinating stuff to read here for sure! I do not have much valuable info to add to the previous posts I am afraid... I also grew up on vinyl, and had most of my vinyl experiences when I was (don't laugh) a club DJ when I was in College in the late 80's through about 1993 or so. I used to fly to germany every summer and pick up 12" imports of dance music that nobody could get here in Cincinnati! Those were the days of great music! The experience of putting the needle on a record (even though the records were played on Technics SL1200's) was somewhat magical! The sound was very warm even on the club's sound system... That was right around the time cd's came out and i remember playing my first CD through our sound system and it sounded very harsh and bright with little bass compared to the vinyl 12 inchers! The imports I played had just one song on one side of the vinyl so the grooves were spaced alot further apart and the bass was just magical. I also was heavily into the Rave scene in the early 90's and played at alot of events (mostly trance and techno). Bottom line it was always about good music, and I would only DJ at a club where I could play what I liked myself!
I still have several mix tapes that I made of great tracks back then that I recorded off vinyl onto cassette or dat. I recently transferred them to CD and lo and behold I can still hear some of that warm magic even on the cd.
I now play all of my digital files lossless through my squeezebox which I am happy with. I do not have an analog rig at this time, and will probably never mess with it.
I think in the end it also all boils down to how well the individual songs were recorded to begin with. A crappy recording will sound crappy on vinyl or cd!
I also agree that there are alot of albums out today by major artists that sound like total crap! I just bought the song "beautiful" by Eminem off itunes and this track is totally distorted (not sure if it was supposed to be that way). Our high rez Martin Logan speakers are just too revealing in the end with bad recordings, but I guess that is what our crazy hobby is all about! Rave on!:rocker:
I still have several mix tapes that I made of great tracks back then that I recorded off vinyl onto cassette or dat. I recently transferred them to CD and lo and behold I can still hear some of that warm magic even on the cd.
I now play all of my digital files lossless through my squeezebox which I am happy with. I do not have an analog rig at this time, and will probably never mess with it.
I think in the end it also all boils down to how well the individual songs were recorded to begin with. A crappy recording will sound crappy on vinyl or cd!
I also agree that there are alot of albums out today by major artists that sound like total crap! I just bought the song "beautiful" by Eminem off itunes and this track is totally distorted (not sure if it was supposed to be that way). Our high rez Martin Logan speakers are just too revealing in the end with bad recordings, but I guess that is what our crazy hobby is all about! Rave on!:rocker:
Last edited:
Bernard
Well-known member
In the latest TAS there is a great article on remastering vinyl (and CD - peace GG) at MoFi.
Similar threads
