Serious Audiophile Question.....

avelanchefan

So I am into a wide variety of music, nothing main stream for the most part. Any ways a band that I am into came out with a new CD last week, and here is the question I have about the recording....

"The entire album was recorded entirely in analog on vintage equipment." Is there a purpose behind this? Is this the purest form of audio? I Wiki'd it and of course I got a huge section on which one is better, and for the most part I guess it depends on who is recording and mastering it, and it is up for debate among audio pruists.

So again, anyone have some analog recording experience? If so is there a huge difference between that and digital recordings?

Thanks

avelanchefan

Seriously?? No One??

mhardy6647

1) some of us like analog transduction of music to electronic formats.
2) some of us believe that the fundamental achievements of engineers in the realm of amplification, transduction from analog storage media (records, tape), and speaker transduction had reached sufficiently advanced development by the late 1940s that no significant improvements have occurred since (nor are any likely in the foreseeable future).

... and some of us don't believe either of the above axioms...

use your ears (and brain) and decide for yourself; or just enjoy the best that every era has (had) to offer.

jagster

This debate has been going on since Cassettes were replaced with CD's. All the audiophile 'experts' like Stereophile and Absolute Sound were really down on CD's for a long time. Things progressed, and now most people listen to some of the most critical music off of CD's. Some claim some labels are better than others, as more care is taken in the mix/recording process.
All you 'lose' when going with CD's is noise, clicks, pops and other garbage coming off you precious vinyl discs.
I sold turntables for years in my two Audio stores back in the golden days, and the key to good performance was the alignment of the cartridge in the tonearm, the amount of weight you decided to use on the stylus to vinyl contact. A real nightmare for most people. Then there was the cartridge argument, and thosands of hours of discussion were wasted on this one factor. Would you give $300 for a cartridge? Not many did. How about a concrete base turntable? It just went on and on.
Now, technology moves on! Do you know what the 'pros' use now? Digital recorders with a small 8gig SD memory card like is in your camera! This is for live and studio recording, through the elaborate mixers and the rest of the signal processing equipment. Now, do you want to mess with the old stuff?
Not cheap, about a grand, but worth every dime if you are serious about converting all your old material to CD's, or just leave it on cards. Have fun!

AudioGenics

in days of old...
There was a sonic difference between a Record LP that was mastered
from Tape vs Direct - using specialized cutting machines , custom electronics, Virgin Vinyl, heavier weighted, longer pressing time, etc (example Sheffield Labs)

To me a CD mastered using vintage equipment and what the engineers were attempting to do may be to create a recording that is accurate or different in playback when compared to other recording techniques or perhaps engineered for a particular client such as the audiophile.
Some may not notice any audible differences or even care.

by the way... what is the name of your CD that you mentioned ?

skrol

There is no absolute regarding analog vs digital recordings. I have heard very good analog and very good digital recordings. I have also heard bad recordings on each. It comes down to equipment and who is doing the mix/mastering.

In general, I feel analog tends to have a warmer, smoother character while digital responds faster. The different characteristics work better with different types of music. The line becomes more blurred with the higher definition digital recordings.

mhardy6647

jagster wrote: »

This debate has been going on since Cassettes were replaced with CD's...

eh? From an "audiophile" perspective, CDs replaced (or were meant to replace) LP records. Cassettes were an audiophile afterthought (even given the existence of decks like the Nakamichi 1000, 700, and Dragon; the Tandberg cassette decks, etc.).

The ahem somewhat larger tape formats were, shall we say, contenders... :-)

George Grand

Vanilla or chocolate? What do you want/like?

Danny Tse

avelanchefan wrote: »

So I am into a wide variety of music, nothing main stream for the most part. Any ways a band that I am into came out with a new CD last week, and here is the question I have about the recording....

"The entire album was recorded entirely in analog on vintage equipment." Is there a purpose behind this? Is this the purest form of audio? I Wiki'd it and of course I got a huge section on which one is better, and for the most part I guess it depends on who is recording and mastering it, and it is up for debate among audio pruists.

So again, anyone have some analog recording experience? If so is there a huge difference between that and digital recordings?

As posted before by others, there're both good and bad recordings done in analog and digital.

As for the your main question....

"The entire album was recorded entirely in analog on vintage equipment." Is there a purpose behind this?

Perhaps the artist want a certain sound signature. I don't know whether you listen to recordings from, say, the 50s or the 60s, but most of them have a "certain sound" to them. Imagine if the Beatles were transported to today and record in today's most technologically-advanced recording studio....they just wouldn't sound the same. There're certain thing you can do with analog recordings that you can't do with digital. I believe the just-released Phil Collins Motown covers CD was recorded using vintage analog equipment to get as close as possible to the original. The CD even has "Side A' and "Side B" for song listing on the back cover.

Some artists will even record using tube equipment to get a certain sound. I remember the singer Jewel mentioning that she like to record her acoustic guitar using tube recording equipment.

Danny Tse

mhardy6647 wrote: »

The ahem somewhat larger tape formats were, shall we say, contenders... :-)

I was at a Head-Fi.org meet earlier this year where a restored Technics reel-to-reel tape recorder went toe-to-toe with a Technics SL-1200 turntable, computer with hard-drives, dedicated CD transports with external DACs, etc.

mhardy6647

Danny Tse wrote: »

I was at a Head-Fi.org meet earlier this year where a restored Technics reel-to-reel tape recorder went toe-to-toe with a Technics SL-1200 turntable, computer with hard-drives, dedicated CD transports with external DACs, etc.

... and? (i.e., who won? or was it a dead heat?)

avelanchefan

Cool thanks guys. I really appreciate the knowledge you have given me in this thread. I had a chance to listen to it in more detail today and I really liked the outcome of the recording. Can I personally notice a difference, I would say no. But maybe over time after listening to it for a while I may hear it.

As for the CD it is Agalloch's new one called Marrow of the Spirit. Excellent band!!

http://www.amazon.com/Marrow-Spirit-Agalloch/dp/B0044RP1I6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agalloch

Nhpm510

HDCD is a better than analog experience, ymmv :-)

mhardy6647

Nhpm510 wrote: »

HDCD is a better than analog experience, ymmv :-)

... but not better than SACD... or, at least, it shouldn't be.

To my ears, SACD is a reasonable facsimile of good analog; price of entry for either is pretty similar (we're talking thousands of smackers for good source components, unfortunately).

steveinaz

One thing I've learned in this audio journey, the quality of the recording is far more important than the source device. It took alot of tail chasing to figure out; and unfortunately, it's the one thing we have no control over...

The reason most SACD's and HDCD's sound so good is NOT because of the technology/format, it's becuase the recordings have been re-mastered, or done correctly from the start. Redbook CD is perfectly capable of excellent music reproduction, when done correctly.

phocion

This is why I have given up on cd, tape, vinyl, tubes, speakers, and now only listen to artists playing vintage instruments live

mhardy6647

phocion wrote: »

This is why I have given up on cd, tape, vinyl, tubes, speakers, and now only listen to artists playing vintage instruments live

Now you're talkin'! You should start a thread about artist rolling...

bikezappa

phocion wrote: »

This is why I have given up on cd, tape, vinyl, tubes, speakers, and now only listen to artists playing vintage instruments live

And where to you find them?
I agree that live playing without electronics is the best but hard to find.

skrol

phocion wrote: »

This is why I have given up on cd, tape, vinyl, tubes, speakers, and now only listen to artists playing vintage instruments live

It is a little awkward when driving in your car, or jogging, or on the sofa with your honey for a romantic rendezvous though.

jflail2

mhardy6647 wrote: »

... and? (i.e., who won? or was it a dead heat?)

Yup, I'm dying to hear what the majority thought was the best medium.

bikezappa

jflail2 wrote: »

Yup, I'm dying to hear what the majority thought was the best medium.

Trust your ears not their's.

jflail2

bikezappa wrote: »

Trust your ears not their's.

Absolutely! I've learned that after watching MANY a debate here over the relative merits of format X versus Y. I most always end up confused when those debates get deep, so I have learned to stick with what I like and be happy that I don't have a "more expensive ear".

I personally prefer FLAC rips of my cd's to my external HD.

I'm honestly not patient/ finnicky enough to get into vinyl it sounds like. A bit too meticulous/time consuming for my taste, but for others it sounds like what they enjoy most!

I just want easy access to tons of uncompressed music. I'm here to maximize my listening enjoyment in the end....