Digital vs. Vinyl (again)

[hvbias]

(Did he do the first CD issue of Physical Graffiti? The one missing the coughs?)

Yes he did. The story goes he mastered it first with the cough left in and someone else edited it out. Subsequently it was shortly reissued with the cough left in as that is how it was supposed to be. If I recall Barry does not consider the one without the cough his mastering because someone else edited the file, but for all intents the two versions are identical.

Have you done blind level matched comparisons between the various CDs? I dislike the FLAC/WAV stuff as much as the next sane audiophile, but I was surprised that when I level boosted the Diament CD mastering to match the Page/Davis remasters and tested them blind it was actually the Diament I was preferring. The major difference seems to be the upper midrange EQ tweaking on the Page/Davis versions. I did not do this for every single album, it was just a smattering of tracks from various albums.

I was actually going to host another blind test taste using various Zeppelin CD versions, but it takes a while to create and level match the files. Shame since I no longer have the files I had originally created for my blind test.

 

[hvbias]

I think my memory is slowly fading away. ...Can we add the missing dots of audio info? ...Me I don't think so; you?

"By now, have you noticed the difference between CDs and vinyl? Okay, even if you not still listening to vinyl, have you at least *felt* the difference between CDs and MP3s?......An MP3 (of a CD) is only about 5 MB. It's remarkable that 7/8 of the information is gone! What does this mean for you, the listener? The song's dimensional information is being thrown out with the bathwater.....

....The basic difference between analog and digital is in the latter's technique of sampling.....the samples, by their nature, leave finite gaps in the wave. These gaps are perceive subconsciously.

It's much like the difference between incandescent and fluorescent lighting. Fluorescents 'flash' on and off 120 times per second. Similarly, digital sound is stopping and starting constantly , as opposed to being a continuous analog wave. And the effect on our psyche is remarkably similar too: Both fluorescent lighting and digital sound can cause stress. (Even though it may be small, this kind of stress is definitely noticeable and even measureable)."

A cassette copied 100 times using the last made dub each pass is still all analog. It will sound worse than a 128 kbps MP3.

 

[NorthSky]

Time to explore back how the digital music world works. ...The waveform...and the human brain.
...Just a start:

• https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/analog-vs-digital/digital-signals
• http://createdigitalmusic.com/2013/...n-analog-digital-isnt-what-most-people-think/

 

[RayDunzl]

Time to explore back how the digital music world works.

I think we have a pretty good handle on "how it works".

 

[Thomas savage]

Time to explore back how the digital music world works. ...The waveform...and the human brain.
...Just a start:

• https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/analog-vs-digital/digital-signals
• http://createdigitalmusic.com/2013/...n-analog-digital-isnt-what-most-people-think/

I like this quote..,

Instead of getting stuck in meaningless debates like whether analog or digital is “better,” in other words, we need to have very meaningful debates about design, sound, music, and art. But that sounds, by contrast, like a good use of time.

 

[Thomas savage]

I think we have a pretty good handle on "how it works".

If that were true we would see a lot less vinyl vs digital threads

 

[krabapple]

Yes he did. The story goes he mastered it first with the cough left in and someone else edited it out. Subsequently it was shortly reissued with the cough left in as that is how it was supposed to be. If I recall Barry does not consider the one without the cough his mastering because someone else edited the file, but for all intents the two versions are identical.

Have you done blind level matched comparisons between the various CDs? I dislike the FLAC/WAV stuff as much as the next sane audiophile, but I was surprised that when I level boosted the Diament CD mastering to match the Page/Davis remasters and tested them blind it was actually the Diament I was preferring. The major difference seems to be the upper midrange EQ tweaking on the Page/Davis versions. I did not do this for every single album, it was just a smattering of tracks from various albums.

I was actually going to host another blind test taste using various Zeppelin CD versions, but it takes a while to create and level match the files. Shame since I no longer have the files I had originally created for my blind test.

Different mastering could be identified correctly in blind test, no question. The EQ difference would also be easy to characterize/confirm using software like Audition. DBT for preference is a little tougher though, *if* you already knew what the two masterings sounded like, and who did which, before the test. Then it's just an identification test again, and preference gets colored by what you 'know' (e.g., 'This one's the Marino mastering; I read bad things about it on the Internet'). A pristine preference test would be one where you knew nothing about either mastering , going in.

 

[RayDunzl]

I think we have a pretty good handle on "how it works".

If that were true we would see a lot less vinyl vs digital threads

Ok, edit:

I think I have a pretty good handle on "how it works".

 

[NorthSky]

But can we see a bad post quoting bollocks about digital audio, if it's not there?

Strap yourself real tight Steven, because we are entering the world of science, between analog and digital waveform, again.
Concentrate on the post's content, and forget the poster; he's not the one you're looking for.
Hold on to your hat, the tango is in rotation.
________

 

[TBone]

A pristine preference test would be one where you knew nothing about either mastering , going in.

I certainly didn't need to read anything over the net to hear OBVIOUS added compression via the Page/Marino transfers ...

BD (1990 7567-90302-2)
DR15 -0.00 dB -18.57 dB 01 Custard Pie.wav
DR13 -2.46 dB -17.48 dB 02 The Rover.wav
DR13 -0.92 dB -17.00 dB 03 In My Time Of Dying.wav
DR13 -0.26 dB -16.32 dB 04 Houses Of The Holy.wav
DR12 -0.76 dB -15.57 dB 05 Trampled Under Foot.wav
DR13 -1.55 dB -18.09 dB 06 Kashmir.wav

PM (2015 R2-544659)
DR9 -0.16 dB -12.04 dB Custard Pie.wav
DR10 -0.27 dB -12.18 dB The Rover.wav
DR10 -0.22 dB -12.60 dB In My Time of Dying.wav
DR10 -0.34 dB -13.03 dB Houses of the Holy.wav
DR9 -0.20 dB -10.83 dB Trampled Under Foot.wav
DR10 -0.21 dB -12.57 dB Kashmir.wav

Not even close.

 

[hvbias]

Different mastering could be identified correctly in blind test, no question. The EQ difference would also be easy to characterize/confirm using software like Audition. DBT for preference is a little tougher though, *if* you already knew what the two masterings sounded like, and who did which, before the test. Then it's just an identification test again, and preference gets colored by what you 'know' (e.g., 'This one's the Marino mastering; I read bad things about it on the Internet'). A pristine preference test would be one where you knew nothing about either mastering , going in.

I've never heard the Marino mastering. I went into the test expecting to prefer the Davis/Page given all the hype surrounding them.

I agree with all your points.

 

[TBone]

Yes he did. The story goes he mastered it first with the cough left in and someone else edited it out. Subsequently it was shortly reissued with the cough left in as that is how it was supposed to be. If I recall Barry does not consider the one without the cough his mastering because someone else edited the file, but for all intents the two versions are identical.

this copy https://www.discogs.com/Led-Zeppelin-Physical-Graffiti/release/2859885 (Barry Diament) includes the cough.

 

[NorthSky]

A cassette copied 100 times using the last made dub each pass is still all analog. It will sound worse than a 128 kbps MP3.

Forget cassette tapes; it was invented for practical recording convenience, not for sound quality with inferior metal particles that oxide over time; making the music disappears by erasing itself. ...The magic of low fidelity with short term life and higher profits for the music record companies.

And if we're talking analog versus digital, we'd better stay analog all the way, because if digital is introduced somewhere in the analog chain, here goes the neighborhood and all the grace that came with it. Check above videos.

 

[FrantzM]

Forget cassette tapes; it was invented for practical recording convenience, not for sound quality with inferior metal particles that oxide over time; making the music disappears by erasing itself. ...The magic of low fidelity with short term life and higher profits for the music record companies.

And if we're talking analog versus digital, we'd better stay analog all the way, because if digital in introduced somewhere in the analog chain, here goes the neighborhood and all the grace that came with it. Check above videos.

You're not serious?

I am with you on the Casette thing ...

The rest I am too sure if you said it in jest or if you were serious.

 

[Thomas savage]

Forget cassette tapes; it was invented for practical recording convenience, not for sound quality with inferior metal particles that oxide over time; making the music disappears by erasing itself. ...The magic of low fidelity with short term life and higher profits for the music record companies.

And if we're talking analog versus digital, we'd better stay analog all the way, because if digital in introduced somewhere in the analog chain, here goes the neighborhood and all the grace that came with it. Check above videos.

I am confused as to what your trying to say with all these linked videos

It all seems random...

 

[RayDunzl]

I guess the anti-digital gaps-in-the-signal folks have never paid attention to how a signal is encoded onto tape.

 

[krabapple]

I certainly didn't need to read anything over the net to hear OBVIOUS added compression via the Page/Marino transfers ...

BD (1990 7567-90302-2)
DR15 -0.00 dB -18.57 dB 01 Custard Pie.wav
DR13 -2.46 dB -17.48 dB 02 The Rover.wav
DR13 -0.92 dB -17.00 dB 03 In My Time Of Dying.wav
DR13 -0.26 dB -16.32 dB 04 Houses Of The Holy.wav
DR12 -0.76 dB -15.57 dB 05 Trampled Under Foot.wav
DR13 -1.55 dB -18.09 dB 06 Kashmir.wav

PM (2015 R2-544659)
DR9 -0.16 dB -12.04 dB Custard Pie.wav
DR10 -0.27 dB -12.18 dB The Rover.wav
DR10 -0.22 dB -12.60 dB In My Time of Dying.wav
DR10 -0.34 dB -13.03 dB Houses of the Holy.wav
DR9 -0.20 dB -10.83 dB Trampled Under Foot.wav
DR10 -0.21 dB -12.57 dB Kashmir.wav

Not even close.

No one is claiming compression cannot be heard...nor is it necessarily bad. In fact, since were talking about preference: the reason it's applied is because people typically *prefer* louder, up to a point, at least in casual/short comparisons (like in focus group testing).

Like any audio tweak, compression can be overdone, and notoriously has been. But the Page/Marinos are not a poster child for that. The DR difference may sound obvious to you, but they're hardly heinous as these things go. Those were early days in the digital Loudness Wars. (IIRC the 'Mothership' version compression is more extreme)

(And EQ changes can also affect DR readings, apart from compression. )

The version with the cough you show appears to be the Page/Marino. I would be surprised if one of Diament's had that many peaks at full scale.

Btw I'm not sure how yr DR numbers were calculated. Audition amplitude analysis spits out this for my Page/Marino mastering of In My Time of Dying:

that gives a crest factor (aka 'DR' = difference between peak amplitude and average RMS power) of 17.11 dB for L, 17.18dB for R.

 

[TBone]

No one is claiming compression cannot be heard...nor is it necessarily bad. In fact, since were talking about preference: the reason it's applied is because people typically *prefer* louder, up to a point, at least in casual/short comparisons (like in focus group testing).

Yes, I prefer less compression, hence my bias.

Like any audio tweak, compression can be overdone, and notoriously has been. But the Page/Marinos are not a poster child for that. The DR difference may sound obvious to you, but they're hardly heinous as these things go. Those were early days in the digital Loudness Wars. (IIRC the 'Mothership' version compression is more extreme)

A friend has Mothership, I'll attempt to borrow for comparison.

The version with the cough you show appears to be the Page/Marino. I would be surprised if one of Diament's had that many peaks at full scale.

Indeed it was a PM plot, when I have time, I'll re-plot the BD edition.

 

[hvbias]

I am confused as to what your trying to say with all these linked videos

It all seems random...

It doesn't seem like they're even talking about consumer playback, it's mostly on the recording side and repeating false notions like the stair step. I agree that there are some "sweet" things about analog recording, none of which make them transparent. The classical labels switched to recording to digital and it's for the better. Wasn't this thread about vinyl, or have we moved on from that?

 

[TBone]

I agree that there are some "sweet" things about analog recording, none of which make them transparent. The classical labels switched to recording to digital and it's for the better. Wasn't this thread about vinyl, or have we moved on from that?

imo, the "sweetest" vinyl I have are my original LPs pressings, which still sound fine. My most recent purchases of newer vinyl releases/remasters has been very disappointing, to the point I no longer consider buying new vinyl. That said, same goes for CDs, I tend to search our local used bins for the originals, avoiding most remasters and "audiophile" grade CDs (ex:MFSL). Once in a while I'll come across some tossed orig.Japanese pressings, those I snatch without hesitation (with or without OBI).