• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Digital vs. Vinyl (again)

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Whenever I listen to early Led Zeppelin (before about Presence), I wonder: where's the bass?
LP, original CD, remasters, they're all the same. Take "Kashmir" as an example. It's a huge sounding track. But there's almost nothing below 100 Hz... It's a pity, there's a good bass line buried in there by all accounts.
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
LZ3, initially, was a WTF moment for me. Never forget hearing it first time, consider my expectations after the blues/rock driven self titled album then the hard hitting II ... exceeded during the opening salvo of Immigrant Song ... followed by country & western????? Took me a long time to warm up to 3.
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
Don, compared to the CD, i, ii, iii, early orig LPs may offer more apparent bass, some pressings perhaps too much. The famed RL II pressing comes to mind (have a rip somewhere). Unlike the early CDs, which can sound too lean, JPJ underlying low freq bass on lp can sound bloated in comparison, esp with certain pressings. However, on the above mentioned SD7201 LP, i really appreciate his unique style/playing, esp along side JB. Haven't listened to Kashmir in some time, still need to rip Physical.
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Returning briefly to the clipping theme:
The video below is a good demonstration of compression / limiting. It's especially useful when schooling someone who can't seem to hear that most modern music is compressed to strawberry jam. Skip to about the 2:00 mark and set the playback level to "loud but below clipping", about 85 dB SPL if you have a meter. This should prevent damaging equipment or your ears. Now start from the beginning. See if you can resist turning the level down before the end of the track.
(It's played by a cello quartet, from the "play like you're sawing your speakers in half" school.)

 

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
947
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
Led Zeppelin III - the Magic ...


;)
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
The video below is a good demonstration of compression / limiting. It's especially useful when schooling someone who can't seem to hear that most modern music is compressed to strawberry jam.

Certainly not raspberry beret. Beautiful song, at least it preserved the beginning, before my tweeters turned jelly ...
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,223
Likes
3,835
Overall limiting/compression as an "artistic choice" in effect. You can see many instances in this where the wave was limited before it went out of bounds, and limited from touching that last little increment of +/-

Other tunes twiddled by other engineers, with similar processing of the wave, may show no clips even when set to 1, because their "artistic choice" software chooses not to use that last least significant bit and give itself away by illuminating that little clip light present on some devices.

The most intelligent clipping detector I know of is Wave Repair which can be set to detect clipping where there engineer/artist 'cheated' by clipping then lowering the level so the consecutive '0 dBFS' samples no longer reach 0 dBFS.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,223
Likes
3,835
Whenever I listen to early Led Zeppelin (before about Presence), I wonder: where's the bass?
LP, original CD, remasters, they're all the same. Take "Kashmir" as an example. It's a huge sounding track. But there's almost nothing below 100 Hz... It's a pity, there's a good bass line buried in there by all accounts.

AFAIK, there's no bass guitar on 'Kashmir'. The bassline is pedals.

Plenty of bass on my CD (Page/Marino) of LZ II.
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
AFAIK, there's no bass guitar on 'Kashmir'. The bassline is pedals.

So? No bass is no bass.

Plenty of bass on my CD (Page/Marino) of LZ II.

I compared the original LP with the (BD) CD when I got it. The CD had a similar balance to the LP, so I haven't played the LP since.
I haven't heard the Page/Marino remaster since the 90s, I wasn't impressed enough to buy it. Do I buy a copy on your recommendation? Tough choice... :)

Edit:
I'm not saying that Kashmir, or any of the catalogue, should have more bass. It is the way it is for artistic reasons. They were mixed / mastered that way.
 
Last edited:

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
I compared the original LP with the (BD) CD when I got it. The CD had a similar balance to the LP, so I haven't played the LP since.

They're cut from the same cloth. BD stated that he lifted the highs a tad, and, perhaps, should've used even more eq on his mix. The early LP masters were all over the place. Add the fact that many were played to an inch of their lives, it's very difficult to find one in decent enough shape to properly compare. That said, have some 200g classic versions for comparison, brand spanking new, still wrapped, never played. Hope to rip 'em soon.

I mentioned the first, very limited run of RL LP copies (LZII), supposedly the most bass heavy version out there, soon culled because it couldn't be tracked by the stylus/turntables of that era. I think I either have a v.good rip of the LP, or perhaps a digital copy of the R2R version it was derived, either in 24/192 or possibly DSD. If time permits, I'll check my archives and post a plot ... if memory serves, the one time I did hear it, awesome low freq impact, without the bloat.

None of the page.marino titles are worth much in these circles, hardly recomendable, collectors have long stayed away for obvious reasons. That said, if one prefers the added compression/limiting, they can be had, used, for a dime a dozen, or you can pay full cost for the identical HDTrack version.
 

SoundAndMotion

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
144
Likes
111
Location
Germany
I'm all ears. Please explain.
Hmmm… I’m not sure what to say. It seems clear to me, but I must be wrong about that.

Verbal explanation: Typically any peak in the signal will *not* consist of two or more equal samples. So the peak is greater than its two neighbors. If you hard limit at a value greater than the neighbors, but less than the peak, the single peak point will be “clipped”. Of course, in most situations I can imagine, the neighbors will be close in value to the peak. This means either the peak won’t be clipped much or multiple points will be clipped.

Visual explanation: Imagine a 8820 Hz wave with amplitude 1.7 that you sample at 44.1kHz. That means exactly 5 samples/cycle. They are [0.00, 1.617, 0.999, -0.999, -1.617]. If you hard clip at 1.0, you clip single points, whether you filter then clip or clip then filter. See figure.

Let me know if that makes sense or if I’ve blundered.
 

Attachments

  • ClippingDemoASRp.png
    ClippingDemoASRp.png
    16.6 KB · Views: 198

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
947
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
I just put my Marino/Page Zep I in my CD player; after only two minutes I ejected it! It is so bad that I need to rebuy my Zeppelin CDs (1 to 4) again.
I knew that it was better for me to not try it again; but with this Zep thread (digital vs vinyl) I had to do it again...the suffering, the pain from those 1994 digital music remastering (CDs). It's like a nightmare, bad digital memories...coming back and haunting me all over again.
Time to put them to forever rest and never to go back there, just a forgotten world of digital pain and digital misery. It sounded exactly like a can of sardines rubbing against the sidewalk of Benghazi's street. What were they thinking!
 
Last edited:

iridium

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
525
Likes
115

Be very careful, vinyl vs. digital discussions can get UGLY:
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
wow, looks like he applied way too-much anti-skate ....
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,223
Likes
3,835
Hmmm… I’m not sure what to say. It seems clear to me, but I must be wrong about that.

Verbal explanation: Typically any peak in the signal will *not* consist of two or more equal samples. So the peak is greater than its two neighbors. If you hard limit at a value greater than the neighbors, but less than the peak, the single peak point will be “clipped”. Of course, in most situations I can imagine, the neighbors will be close in value to the peak. This means either the peak won’t be clipped much or multiple points will be clipped.

Visual explanation: Imagine a 8820 Hz wave with amplitude 1.7 that you sample at 44.1kHz. That means exactly 5 samples/cycle. They are [0.00, 1.617, 0.999, -0.999, -1.617]. If you hard clip at 1.0, you clip single points, whether you filter then clip or clip then filter. See figure.

Let me know if that makes sense or if I’ve blundered.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I could argue that in your figure, it's never just one sample that is affected, though only one sample is 'clipped'. But I see your point..only one sample is within the flat 'plateau'.

What I was referring to with clip finder miscalls was the case where a 0 dBFS amplitude peak happens to coincide exactly with a sample ... in a figure like yours it would be a little square right at +/-1.617, with the samples before and after it at +/-0.999. Some detectors will call this an instance of 'clipping', when it's not.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,223
Likes
3,835
They're cut from the same cloth. BD stated that he lifted the highs a tad, and, perhaps, should've used even more eq on his mix. The early LP masters were all over the place. Add the fact that many were played to an inch of their lives, it's very difficult to find one in decent enough shape to properly compare. That said, have some 200g classic versions for comparison, brand spanking new, still wrapped, never played. Hope to rip 'em soon.

I mentioned the first, very limited run of RL LP copies (LZII), supposedly the most bass heavy version out there, soon culled because it couldn't be tracked by the stylus/turntables of that era. I think I either have a v.good rip of the LP, or perhaps a digital copy of the R2R version it was derived, either in 24/192 or possibly DSD. If time permits, I'll check my archives and post a plot ... if memory serves, the one time I did hear it, awesome low freq impact, without the bloat.

None of the page.marino titles are worth much in these circles, hardly recomendable, collectors have long stayed away for obvious reasons. That said, if one prefers the added compression/limiting, they can be had, used, for a dime a dozen, or you can pay full cost for the identical HDTrack version.

Diament was almost certainly working from an LP production master of (to us at least) unknown generation...with all that entails for actual fidelity to the master tapes. Hard to know exactly what relation any of the consumer masterings have, to what's on the master tapes. To make the final call we'd all need to hear a 'flat transfer' of whatever master tapes (or safety copies) still exist.

Was there a reel-to-reel version of LZII released back in 1969? That would make an interesting comparison too.
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
Diament was almost certainly working from an LP production master of (to us at least) unknown generation...with all that entails for actual fidelity to the master tapes. Hard to know exactly what relation any of the consumer masterings have, to what's on the master tapes. To make the final call we'd all need to hear a 'flat transfer' of whatever master tapes (or safety copies) still exist.

Barry Diament ...

"Actually, I never said the CD masters I created were flat transfers - because they weren't.
*Others* (including a well-known colleague) have called them flat transfers and that made me smile because when I EQ, I always seek to avoid having the results sound EQd. Better to add some "bite" to a guitar solo and have the guitar solo sound like it has more bite than sound like a change was made at x Hz.

As I see it, the original CDs have two problems:
1. They were created with early A-D converters.
2. They sound too much like the tapes I was given to work with (to my knowledge primarily 1:1 copies, except for the last two which were "EQd copies" created during vinyl mastering to contain the same changes as made for vinyl.

I say they sound too much like the source tapes because those tapes needed help. Let's face it: The recordings and the mixes were not exactly like something from Keith Johnson. ;-} I did my usual bypass of everything in the room, connecting directly from the output of the analog playback deck (using my own cables rather than the studio's) to the input of the A-D converters, with only the equalizer in the path. No switches, patch bays, consoles, studio cables, or other signal degrading items.
I applied EQ but in retrospect, not enough. If I did them again today, my approach would still be exactly the same but I'd be more liberal about the application of EQ. (As always, the dynamics of the source are left intact 100%. No compression or limiting is allowed in the room. ;-})

Of course the converters (and EQ) I have today are orders of magnitude beyond what was available when I created those early CD masters. Still, I don't believe the old converters were the weakest link. As I always say, in my experience 90-95% or more of a recording's ultimate sonic quality ceiling has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the mics. Everything after that (cables, preamps, AC power, recording devices, signal path, mix, mastering, etc.) only determines how much we get to hear out of what was original captured."
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
Top Bottom