Is digital really inferior to analog?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 15826 times.

steve in jersey

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 368
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #100 on: 22 May 2017, 09:16 pm »
Most recorded "popular" genres of music are (from the early recordings to present) are of mediocre SQ to make this whole discussion of whether or not one format is a "poor stepchild" of the other a Moot point !

To say that one is superior (or how many channels are actually necessary) only tells me that someone "Really" hasn't heard the best that each format has to offer !!!

It's pretty funny that people want to compare anything that is completely Subjective & based on the level of everyone's individual level of personal experience. You can give all the examples of why something should work the way you've explained things, but "should" is just 1 person's perspective (unless other people are doing your listening for you) (Which would explain a lot to me given some of these discussions)


CanadianMaestro

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1760
  • Skepticism is the engine of progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #101 on: 22 May 2017, 09:51 pm »
Still.

There is something missing, in a recording -- ANY recording, that marks it as NOT a live performance. A Black Hole in our brain's perceptual circuits, that allows us to say, sub-consciously or not, that this is a recording, and not a live perf. No matter what the $$ of the gear is.

Is it the actual performers (obviously)? Something else?  :scratch:

steve in jersey

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 368
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #102 on: 23 May 2017, 12:12 am »
Still.

There is something missing, in a recording -- ANY recording, that marks it as NOT a live performance. A Black Hole in our brain's perceptual circuits, that allows us to say, sub-consciously or not, that this is a recording, and not a live perf. No matter what the $$ of the gear is.

Is it the actual performers (obviously)? Something else?  :scratch:

He,he,he........ Which is why whenever possible I rarely hesitate to select "Representational Recordings" if I have an option for the music that I'm buying !

All recordings are interpretive representations of the music (by nature). With "Rep. recording" the RE (If the Label will allow it;It's more expensive to record this way)uses a different microphone placement technique that will be a combination of direct & non direct sound that will be an attempt to capture how the performance sounded "live" in that location. It's next to impossible to reproduce the actual sound of "Live", but if you try to respect how the performance location is affecting the actual "sound of live music making" the results can be step closer to that objective !

My favorite series of recorded music to date would have to be "The Anthology of the RCO/Live". The Concercebouw(sp) was considered the World's best Concert Hall for a good number of years. As good as these Orchestral recordings sound I can't imagine how great things must have actually sounded

charmerci

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #103 on: 23 May 2017, 12:17 am »

There is something missing, in a recording -- ANY recording, that marks it as NOT a live performance.
Is it the actual performers (obviously)? Something else?

Well, to open another can of worms,  :icon_twisted: I have not heard recently a live concert (amplified) that I prefer over great recordings/performances on my system. Amplified performances are just so painful for me these days.  :cry:

Mag

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #104 on: 23 May 2017, 12:49 am »
Well, to open another can of worms,  :icon_twisted: I have not heard recently a live concert (amplified) that I prefer over great recordings/performances on my system. Amplified performances are just so painful for me these days.  :cry:

I agree with you here, I went to two live arena concerts Kiss & Chili Peppers and the recordings sound better, but I had nose bleed seats.

Blue Rodeo on the otherhand some ten years ago at our auditorium. My stereo then wasn't even in the ballpark. The stereo I have now (digital) sounds like the real thing, I am there again experience. I can say that about Rush as well, seen them in '77 & '78 and the album 'All the World's Stage' as well as Farewell to Kings' sounds like the real thing as I recall being there. :drool:

PS: I have the BCD-3.

CanadianMaestro

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1760
  • Skepticism is the engine of progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #105 on: 23 May 2017, 01:27 am »
Well, to open another can of worms,  :icon_twisted: I have not heard recently a live concert (amplified) that I prefer over great recordings/performances on my system. Amplified performances are just so painful for me these days.  :cry:


Do a classical symphony, vocal, or chamber concert.
No amplification. Just you, the instruments, performers, and some gorgeous acoustics in a hall designed just for acoustic near-perfection. Concertgebouw. Musikverein. Winspear Centre.

@Mag. Hard rock concerts are pure noise disguised as....? Catering to big crowds spread across massive spaces.  Not always bad, but they can't be held up on as examples of what well-engineered recordings should aspire to. Much as I like rock (Boss, Rush, Led Zep, Floyd), have not been to a live Rock concert in years. Prefer the cleaned-up recs. Vinyl and CD. (I have BCD-1 + BDA-1)  :thumb:

Mag

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #106 on: 23 May 2017, 02:12 am »
[quote author=CanadianMaestro link=topic=150380.msg1609889#msg1609889 date=14955028
@Mag. Hard rock concerts are pure noise disguised as....? Catering to big crowds spread across massive spaces.  Not always bad, but they can't be held up on as examples of what well-engineered recordings should aspire to. Much as I like rock (Boss, Rush, Led Zep, Floyd), have not been to a live Rock concert in years. Prefer the cleaned-up recs. Vinyl and CD. (I have BCD-1 + BDA-1)  :thumb:
[/quote]

The BDA-1 is a good dac I have it, I use to have a BCD-1. I however piggy back the BDA-1 with my SP2 dac, as good as this combo is, the BCD-3 is more transparent using bypass mode. If the cd mix is good then the recording will sound stellar with the BCD-3. Crap mixes just reveal how lousy the mix really is.

I have a few classical recordings not a lot, my best classical reference is Morricone and some movie soundtracks and a Mozart. I also have some Beethoven and Schubert's 8th unfinished. :smoke:

Bendingwave

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 358
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #107 on: 23 May 2017, 02:29 am »
Speaking of a live band it reminded me of this video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lmXi1y1fzs
« Last Edit: 23 May 2017, 05:03 am by Bendingwave »

Marius

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #108 on: 23 May 2017, 12:42 pm »
There's no such thing is there? No live performance can be reproduced in anyones home setting. It's just a matter of size, which does matter in this case..


How could any setup come close to a hall of concert dimensions. Let alone an opera performance fit in the living-setup. Mine is called auditorium, but it doesn't help ;-((


Then again, i always find it just as difficult/impossible to listen to a recording of a solo singer, lets say doing Schubert's Winterreise, and not have the setup fault in the loud passages. Somehow these recordings are so compressed  one has to up the volume in the soft passages, and hurry to the remote in the louder ones.


And i am forgoing the hall's acoustic for a minute, which is the signature of any good recording. No close miking for the inner voices please, just let the musicians do their jobs well, and have the conductor be the master of sound. No after mixing, cause with the setup on discussion here, all is heard. Not for the better.


As a note about the Concertgebouw here: it is wonderful indeed, still is, and makes any ugly sound sound beautiful ;) Difficult to play though cause one hears mostly one-self ;)
btw, recordings are made off-stage there, in the auditorium with all seats taken out.


Cheers,
Marius


He,he,he........ Which is why whenever possible I rarely hesitate to select "Representational Recordings" if I have an option for the music that I'm buying !

All recordings are interpretive representations of the music (by nature). With "Rep. recording" the RE (If the Label will allow it;It's more expensive to record this way)uses a different microphone placement technique that will be a combination of direct & non direct sound that will be an attempt to capture how the performance sounded "live" in that location. It's next to impossible to reproduce the actual sound of "Live", but if you try to respect how the performance location is affecting the actual "sound of live music making" the results can be step closer to that objective !

My favorite series of recorded music to date would have to be "The Anthology of the RCO/Live". The Concercebouw(sp) was considered the World's best Concert Hall for a good number of years. As good as these Orchestral recordings sound I can't imagine how great things must have actually sounded

BobRex

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #109 on: 23 May 2017, 12:54 pm »
There's no such thing is there? No live performance can be reproduced in anyones home setting. It's just a matter of size, which does matter in this case..


How could any setup come close to a hall of concert dimensions. Let alone an opera performance fit in the living-setup. Mine is called auditorium, but it doesn't help ;-((


Then again, i always find it just as difficult/impossible to listen to a recording of a solo singer, lets say doing Schubert's Winterreise, and not have the setup fault in the loud passages. Somehow these recordings are so compressed  one has to up the volume in the soft passages, and hurry to the remote in the louder ones.

Almost All recordings have some level of compression, partly for the reasons you state.  But I wonder if you might be a little confused about compression.  If a recording is "so compressed" then the dynamic window (range) is limited.  As such, the quiet passages are made louder and the loud passages are made quieter.  Therefore there is no reason to turn up the volume in the soft passages - they are already too loud.  If you are actively working the volume control your recording is "too dynamic", not compressed.

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19908
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #110 on: 23 May 2017, 12:57 pm »
Speaking of a live band it reminded me of this video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lmXi1y1fzs
The playback was awfull, even consider the musical program was simple percussion music, not a string section full of filigree and harmonics.

charmerci

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #111 on: 23 May 2017, 02:00 pm »

How could any setup come close to a hall of concert dimensions. Let alone an opera performance fit in the living-setup. Mine is called auditorium, but it doesn't help ;-((


Then again, i always find it just as difficult/impossible to listen to a recording of a solo singer, lets say doing Schubert's Winterreise, and not have the setup fault in the loud passages. Somehow these recordings are so compressed  one has to up the volume in the soft passages, and hurry to the remote in the louder ones.

And i am forgoing the hall's acoustic for a minute, which is the signature of any good recording. No close miking for the inner voices please, just let the musicians do their jobs well, and have the conductor be the master of sound. No after mixing, cause with the setup on discussion here, all is heard. Not for the better.

Cheers,
Marius

Yes, but if an opera singer was in your living room projecting like they do on stage, I'm sure you'd want some compression on him or her too!  :lol:

CanadianMaestro

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1760
  • Skepticism is the engine of progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #112 on: 23 May 2017, 02:39 pm »
^ If it's Wagner being sung in my LR, I would do more than compress him/her!

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19908
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #113 on: 23 May 2017, 04:29 pm »
Compressors are a tool and should be used as that when necessary as doing by bass players, not to increase sound volume in master recordings.
The prob is compression dont embellish the music.

Elizabeth

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2736
  • So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #114 on: 23 May 2017, 08:53 pm »
Yes, but if an opera singer was in your living room projecting like they do on stage, I'm sure you'd want some compression on him or her too!  :lol:

nope. I love opera. Having Maria Callas full blast is a blessing.

(I too have a full voice. Once at work in a typical HR 'kill the messenger' meeting, I was speaking with a little emphasis.. The HR creature said (to get the dig into the record) I was 'shouting'.
So I turned to her and using my 'full' voice. said in a good loud but fully controlled tone "THIS IS SHOUTING". Their ears had to be still ringing hours afterwards.
The Union steward was impressed.)

CanadianMaestro

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1760
  • Skepticism is the engine of progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #115 on: 23 May 2017, 08:57 pm »
nope. I love opera. Having Maria Callas full blast is a blessing.

(I too have a full voice. Once at work in a typical HR 'kill the messenger' meeting, I was speaking with a little emphasis.. The HR creature said (to get the dig into the record) I was 'shouting'.
So I turned to her and using my 'full' voice. said in a good loud but fully controlled tone "THIS IS SHOUTING". Their ears had to be still ringing hours afterwards.
The Union steward was impressed.)

No wonder you're a Bryston fan. 

Marius

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #116 on: 24 May 2017, 08:52 am »
Lol.
When rehearsing Forza del Destino, we once had a tenor only able to sing too loud. (putting it mildly here..) When the conductor, reluctantly, dared to ask him to sing a bit more as Verdi prescribed, he answered, angrily: IM SORRY, BUT THATS MY VOICE...


which if course was the end of an otherwise very nice production ;-)


Cheers, Marius


btw, Maria Callas singing anything is a blessing. Full blast or mezzo voce, and all else for that matter. Taking my daughter to her first opera will be the next Carmen in Paris. Prepping for that I showed her Callas' Habanera.
Another one down for La Divina in this household.


nope. I love opera. Having Maria Callas full blast is a blessing.

(I too have a full voice. Once at work in a typical HR 'kill the messenger' meeting, I was speaking with a little emphasis.. The HR creature said (to get the dig into the record) I was 'shouting'.
So I turned to her and using my 'full' voice. said in a good loud but fully controlled tone "THIS IS SHOUTING". Their ears had to be still ringing hours afterwards.
The Union steward was impressed.)

Marius

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #117 on: 24 May 2017, 08:57 am »
Almost All recordings have some level of compression, partly for the reasons you state.  But I wonder if you might be a little confused about compression.  If a recording is "so compressed" then the dynamic window (range) is limited.  As such, the quiet passages are made louder and the loud passages are made quieter.  Therefore there is no reason to turn up the volume in the soft passages - they are already too loud.  If you are actively working the volume control your recording is "too dynamic", not compressed.


HI Bob,


check, you're right. mixed it up a bit.. Guess what i wanted to say is real life dynamics don't fit in the Living room, especially when the recordings use the full dynamic range available. Which leaves us live performance lovers wanting all the time...


Chees,
Marius 

Marius

Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #118 on: 24 May 2017, 09:04 am »
Yes, but if an opera singer was in your living room projecting like they do on stage, I'm sure you'd want some compression on him or her too!  :lol:


the good ones project to the back wall of the auditorium. Should be a lot easier in my Living than in the Opera Hall...

but even in a small setting, when a real singer/musician is playing live, they produce a lot of sound. Try this: just have someone talk while playing some heavy music recording on a significant volume level. You can always hear the talking (real live experience speaking here ...)

Cheers,
Marius

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19908
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Is digital really inferior to analog?
« Reply #119 on: 24 May 2017, 11:45 am »
Pavaroti favorite soprano wasnt Callas but Joan Sutherland.