The digital trick

[beck]

Following the discussions about Pre versus Radikal first I listened to some old favorites of mine on my Sondek (lingo first).
My old analog recordings showed the sound I expected being slightly "clumsy" and showing when musicians were not perfectly in tune.
Then listening to a digitally remastered version of the same everything seemed to be in perfect tune.

The same happened over and over again with all the analog versus digitally remastered albums I could find in my collection.

Then I remembered an old girlfriend who had made recordings with a professionel pop band telling me it was not important to fine tune her viola up against the other musicians playing on the record (she was recorded seperately). It would not be heard anyway on the final master and following cd.

Digital when used in the recording proces breaks the link to real live music by not being able to show us when instruments are not in tune. This is also what I have been hearing all along but not recognising when listening to digital hifi systems (streaming, exact and so on).

As soon as digital (has been) is being used my ability to hear something being out of tune disappears.

My take is that digital by nature breaks everything up and puts it back together only almost thereby breaking the true connection between everything in a recording.

Just like the milk we buy digital homogenize the sound.

[matthias]

Interesting, but how do you perceive tiny timing differences between clips (pre first and Rad first) when digital is not capable. All clips are digital.

Matt

[beck]

Digital are capable to a certain degree and differences show themselves as being different.

My post above is an open invitation to try it for yourself and make up your own mind.

[Charlie1]

I can't think of a single LP of mine that has been digitally remastered. It's either original analogue or original digital. I try to get as early pressing as possible, without paying too much. I have kept a couple of modern reissues (i.e. mono version 'Axis Bold as Love') but think they are all made from original analogue tapes.

Other than having a preference for analogue recordings, I can't really comment on your theory.

[matthias]

Another point is that digitally remastered does not say anything about the digital quality. As there are differences in analogue, so are differences in digital as well.
Digital reaches from MP3 to something like DSD512.

Matt

[beck]

Another point is that digitally remastered does not say anything about the digital quality. As there are differences in analogue, so are differences in digital as well.
Digital reaches from MP3 to something like DSD512.

Matt

You are absolutely right about that but I have listened to streaming and other systems at my dealer and linn klimax exact at another dealer and can recall the feeling of disappointment and lack of involvement every time I have listened to digital playback in the last year. The relief comming home to my own little system feeling involved in the music has been present every time.

[matthias]

The analogue output from a Klimax Katalyst (NOT Exakt) is very close or on par to a LP12 in my view.

Matt

[beck]

I get the point that digital can be very good and entertaining. My main focus in the future will however be analog recordings as I doubt that digital will make me just as involved in the music as analog can.

[matthias]

Digital done right can be better than vinyl.

Matt

[beck]

Digital done right can be better than vinyl.

Matt

With all the money that is being invested in it I really hope so but I have my doubts.

[beck]

Find "Audio Note level 5 system review" on youtube and enjoy some interesting thoughts about digital. In chapter 2 part 2 the best digital Audio Note system is playing. It sounds great but I still hear the problem I have mentioned above in my first post in this tread. Have a listen.

[matthias]

I think I would prefer a Klimax Katalyst.

Matt

[sunbeamgls]

I did a brief bit of research, but didn't find a lot. Hopefully someone who knows the science will be able to clarify, elaborate or shoot this down.

What if, for example, a turntable suffers some wow and its occurs around 400Hz in frequency. What if the music contains an instrument playing notes in and around the 400Hz region, such as a clarinet? Are those notes going to be affected much more than other instruments not playing at that frequency? Will it make the clarinet sound out of tune?

Its also a bit of an interesting idea that digital breaking up the sound and rebuilding it is a worse process than the losses the analogue domain introduces such as the cutting process (physical interface loss, speed instability), stamping (physical interface loss, stamp wear), tracing the groove (more physical interfaces losses, surface noise additions, more speed instability). Neither format is perfect of course, but I wonder why some of us prefer one set of compromises to the other?

[tokenbrit]

Find "Audio Note level 5 system review" on youtube and enjoy some interesting thoughts about digital. In chapter 2 part 2 the best digital Audio Note system is playing. It sounds great but I still hear the problem I have mentioned above in my first post in this tread. Have a listen.

'Sounded' OK, but left me cold - felt dissected & could not find the music or any enjoyment (maybe the chosen CD? Tough to tell...)

[matthias]

Comparing mastertape and vinyl from a digital master:

https://oswaldsmillaudio.com/blog/second-time-around/

Matt

[beck]

To me it has not much to do with sound as such. Digital takes the heart and veins out of the music and "replace" it with a mecanical pump and tubes. I hear it in any digitally delivered music around me be it hifi systems or car radio.

In this video the heart is still pumping:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A1sVWSJRew

[matthias]

What you hear is digitally delivered.
BTW, I do not like it.

Matt

[beck]

What you hear is digitally delivered.
BTW, I do not like it.

Matt

I am not trying to convince you. I know what I hear and that is good enough for me. I will leave it here. Cheers

[tokenbrit]

To me it has not much to do with sound as such. Digital takes the heart and veins out of the music and "replace" it with a mecanical pump and tubes. I hear it in any digitally delivered music around me be it hifi systems or car radio.

In this video the heart is still pumping:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A1sVWSJRew

Funny you should say tubes since you link Audio Note clips, and tubes in a hi-fi sense are argued to preserve more warmth - heart & soul - in the music... There doesn't seem to be much in either clip, but that could be the recording & digital delivery, or it could be the AN house sound.
The AN digital source came across as precise, but mechanical. There's a similar presentation to the Audio Note system with the analogue front end, but there did seem like there might still be some life in it... possibly. That could be the original recording, the format, the set-up, the room or in-room recording - it's difficult to tell.
The problem I am finding is that there is no reference point from which to compare: we can't judge better or worse, musically, which just leaves us with sound. I don't think that recordings are good for judging in isolation, but do work OK when there are minor changes between clips. That doesn't disprove your findings, but I don't know that these clips prove them either... The challenge with comparing on a forum such as this is finding clips that demonstrate the difference musically between digital & analogue playback with as few changes between clips as possible, including the original recording and its transposition to the media format in question, to ensure we are comparing d-like with a-like

[beck]

Just to be clear. The video clips are not placed by me to prove anything. They only show a shadow of what is happening. The interview with Peter Qvortrup (Audio Note level 5 system review chapter 2 part 1) is very interesting, especially the last 4 minutes.