Thread: Analog?

Posts: 9

Post by Fugue September 1, 2014 (1 of 9)
Aside from a few releases on Tacet, do any other classical labels record with analog equipment? I've heard some 30 i.p.s. master tapes, and nothing beats it for warmth and realism.

Post by Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui September 1, 2014 (2 of 9)
Fugue said:

Aside from a few releases on Tacet, do any other classical labels record with analog equipment? I've heard some 30 i.p.s. master tapes, and nothing beats it for warmth and realism.

Inversely, AmonRa won't be tacet... Surreal (you, I bet, can beat...

Post by AmonRa September 1, 2014 (3 of 9)
Analog warmth = harmonic distortion
harmoinic distortion = not realism

Post by Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui September 2, 2014 (4 of 9)
Next, perchance tailspn will share his 'insider' knowledge of 'cutting-edge' DSD—analog-like recording...

Post by Fugue September 2, 2014 (5 of 9)
AmonRa said:

Analog warmth = harmonic distortion
harmoinic distortion = not realism

Digital freeze-dried/chopping music into little bits= not realism, either.

Post by AmonRa September 2, 2014 (6 of 9)
Fugue said:

Digital freeze-dried/chopping music into little bits= not realism, either.

End result is the only thing that matters. Maybe not realism, but 1000 times better than analog.

Analog signal coming out of digital recording system is vastly more accurate copy of the original analog signal going in than the output signal produced by analog recording systems. Digitally recorded signal is about 10000 times more accurate than best tape and 10 million times more accurate than LP. Try to get over the digital anxiety, all is technology, both analog and digital systems.

Post by AmonRa September 2, 2014 (7 of 9)
I wonder if there were true "analogists" a hundred years ago who opposed the newfangled sound mangling "electronic" phonographs when those were invented, using "microphones" and "radio tubes" to amplify the sacrosanct analog signal which is certainly meant to be captured and reproduced by vibrating membranes in the end of a curved horn.

Post by Fugue September 2, 2014 (8 of 9)
Ya know, I didn't intend on inciting a debate: I just asked a simple question.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 September 2, 2014 (9 of 9)
AmonRa said:

I wonder if there were true "analogists" a hundred years ago who opposed the newfangled sound mangling "electronic" phonographs when those were invented, using "microphones" and "radio tubes" to amplify the sacrosanct analog signal which is certainly meant to be captured and reproduced by vibrating membranes in the end of a curved horn.

No doubt there were those intolerant of change even then. So, the ultimate playback might be "pure" analog played acoustically out of the grooves directly into a horn via a cactus needle with no intervening electronics. Whoops, we will have to do away with that impure RIAA EQ curve which only distorts "the pure truth". So, 78's, not 33's, are the true answer, after all, preferably the ones made before electronic recording only made everything worse.

Everyone is entitled to their favorite format. But, opinions are cheap with no need to be rigorous in the comparison, especially not today on the web. Some will justify their choice in spite of all the evidence. Many of those really have no idea since they have no basis in attendance to compare it to live music or have good, modern examples of digital equipment for comparison. Some are just reviled by the new and clutching the old for dear life or sentimental reasons. Resistance to change, even to something demonstrably much better, is part of the human condition.

It amazes me that we continue to worship the sacred cow of vinyl, when it accounts for less than 2% of total album sales. But, hey, the numbers say they are increasing. And, the younger set supposedly loves it, with all their great wisdom and experience on sonics, when not listening to their iPods, that is. That is a pretty small niche, approaching SACD, I would imagine. Yet, our major audiophile rags continue to hype up their annual issue dedicated completely to vinyl playback, replete with tons of ads from vinyl suppliers and equipment makers, while they continue to largely ignore SACD, BD-A, hi rez and Mch.

I happen to know a turntable maker with a $150k design that was reviewed glowingly by a number of really prestigious vinyl-types and declared truly outstanding. Last I heard, he had still not sold a one. I even heard it in a really top notch system. My feeling, shared by others of my persuasion, was sonically is that all ya got? Not his fault, really. It was really very good - for vinyl. I suppose if you are fixated on the antiquated sound of old recordings, it was terrific. But, I think modern recordings, hi rez digital formats, etc. run circles around vinyl at its very best, even on a system costing a fraction of the turntable alone.

Closed