Alizée collection

[Sir Wood]

Originally Posted by espire

Snatcher, all the advantages of LPs are completely lost when you record them over into MP3s!

Resolution, dynamic range, analog warmth... Don't murder perfection!

LOL, I remember a couple of my NCO's arguing over this. Because any digital is just discrete sampling of the analog, it will never be the same as the original analog source. The thing is the human hearing gets to the point were you can't really tell the difference, and don't even mention the various types of equipments that you may or may not have (hi-end/low-end)... It got to the point that they agreed to disagreeing which is better.

Although, converting to MP3 is just more better for the convenience of portability to putting the music in your MP3 player or on a CD to listen to in your car. Can you imagine carrying an LP player and an extension cord.

[espire]

Very true. Of course, with I listen to LPs, it's with super high-end equipment from the 70s, which could have an effect on what I think of it. However, even without the resolution, there is that warmth and liveliness that anybody can notice.

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by espire

Snatcher, all the advantages of LPs are completely lost when you record them over into MP3s!

Resolution, dynamic range, analog warmth... Don't murder perfection!

Analog warmth (which is technically a form of distortion) I buy, but resolution and dynamic range I don't quite buy really. Just because it excites the ears in a certain way doesn't mean it's a more faithful reproduction of the original soundwave.

[Cooney]

While any given analog recording may or may not be a "more faithful reproduction" of an original soundwave, analog does hold trump over digital in terms of the ability to be better.

Under ideal conditions, a perfect analog recording will be inherently more accurate that the best possible digital recording. Sound waves and analog recording share the same physical form, while digital recording changes that form in to something less accurate. Potentially so good no human could tell the difference, but less accurate none the less.

I still wouldn't give up the wonders of digital recording for anything, as I like my mp3's and CD's very much, and it would take lab conditions to notice a difference if the digital is done well. Just saying.

[lefty12357]

Most of the warmth of analog came from recording on analog magnetic tape. Magnetic tape is somewhat forgiving when pumping a strong signal onto it, which causes some tape saturation. This saturation is actually distortion, but a kind (in the right amount) that adds warmth and is pleasant to hear. The clipped waveform is somewhat smoothed out. Digital distortion sounds nasty and chops the waveforms off. Companies have made a small fortune selling preamps and plugins that simulate (to some degree) this tape saturation to try to improve the warmth of digital recordings.

Trying to capture this added warmth is an indication that the recording engineer is not always interested in accurate sound reproduction, they are looking for an improvement. We used to call it “putting a little ketchup on the burger”.

The old way was to record on multi-track analog tape, mix down onto 2 track analog tape, and then make the LP master from that. I’m not sure there’s much benefit in buying LP’s that are mastered from digital recordings.

[Ben]

Guys, this isn't about analog vs digital sound quality. You can't send an LP over the Internet. I want to know if there are any records with tracks not available anywhere else so that I can share them with you. The Mademoiselle Juliette vinyl has an exclusive acapella version and remix, for example. There's one or two others with exclusive instrumentals as well, if I remember correctly, and I can hunt for them on eBay if I know which!

[fsquared]

Snatcher,
Of course it's not supposed to be about analog vs. digital. This is a thread hijack attempt here, don'cha know?

I'm not going to pretend that I have ears that can tell the difference....and even in my best days, I only had a B&O turntable, an Adcom low-end amp, some lightweight Denon CD player, and a pair of Boston Acoustics A80's or something. Now I listen to music on some cheesy computer speakers.

But, Cooney, I'd respond by asking, what do you mean by "better"? If you mean "closer to the original waveform" in some metric, then you have to quantify your "ideal conditions". I can't say I am an expert on the material properties of vinyl, but I'm betting that it's sufficiently squishy (not to mention scratchable) that there's a non-negligible loss of fidelity. If you're talking about some sort of "perfectly rigid" material, and a perfectly rigid needle and turntable arm, etc. etc., then we're getting into idealizations.

Anyway, I guess I'm not an expert on all the sources of error, noise, etc. that can creep in.
I did note an interesting discussion here on quantifying the benefits of 24-bit over 16-bit.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ind...1787/0/0/4549/

[Ben]

Originally Posted by fsquared

Snatcher,
Of course it's not supposed to be about analog vs. digital. This is a thread hijack attempt here, don'cha know?

Well espire advised me not to make the recordings. I only plan to for tracks we don't have.

Though just for myself I did make a 24-bit 48kHz wave file (highest settings my comp could handle) of a Psychédélices vinyl to see if I could hear a difference. I can, though not all for the better.

[Ricardo]

After a long time searching for it, I can say I lost my MCE

[Sir Wood]

Originally Posted by Ricardo

After a long time searching for it, I can say I lost my MCE

What!?! That's it, go put yourself in the corner of the room and no after dinner dessert for you! (j/k)

Sorry to hear that...