• Welcome to ASR. 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!

When a single vinyl album costs more than your DAC ...

We're really going off into the weeds here...allow me to contribute. ;)

Keep in mind there really is no such thing as analog. All matter, energy, time, and space are already quantized.
Very true! Particularly obvious in "analogue" photography where the picture is made up of grains which are either exposed or not. The resolution depends on the grain size, which is only tiny in very insensitive (slow) film but is never continuous.
 
Wilma Cozart Fine apparently mixed the taped 3 microphone tracks of the Mercury "Living Presence" LPs to stereo on the fly cutting the lacquers.
There is no physical record of what she did.
The CDs had to be done from the tapes by experienced guesswork...
Wilma Cozart Fine was in charge of the excellent technical work for the CD remasters of the Living Presence catalog but not the later SACD transfers.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/wilma-cozart-fine-the-muse-of-mercury/
 
Last edited:
Wilma Cozart Fine was in charge of the excellent technical work for the CD remasters of the Living Presence catalog but not the later SACD transfers.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/wilma-cozart-fine-the-muse-of-mercury/
I believe so, though I had read it was one of her sons that did it though I can't find the reference now.
She left Mercury in 1964 so she would have been getting on a bit when she returned to "help with the transfer to CD".
They are pretty enjoyable recordings anyway, I bought the CDs in boxed sets - tremendous value.
 
I believe so, though I had read it was one of her sons that did it though I can't find the reference now.
She left Mercury in 1964 so she would have been getting on a bit when she returned to "help with the transfer to CD".
They are pretty enjoyable recordings anyway, I bought the CDs in boxed sets - tremendous value.
There were notes in the CDs (all of mine are in storage) and lots of publicity in the press. The Sycthian Suite recording is a real workout, with dense, loud brass peaks that overload differently depending on the DAC, or so I recall. The LP is impossible, of course, nothing can track it properly.
 
There were notes in the CDs (all of mine are in storage) and lots of publicity in the press. The Sycthian Suite recording is a real workout, with dense, loud brass peaks that overload differently depending on the DAC, or so I recall. The LP is impossible, of course, nothing can track it properly.
Ah yes, I have duplicates since I bought a few of the individual discs before the boxes appeared and there it is in one of them "Produced, musically supervised, 3 to 2 channel conversion for Compact disc by Wilma Cozart Fine".
Mastering engineer Andrew Nicholas.
 
maverickronin, right. Well, at least matter and energy are quantized, for sure. Space and time quantization possibly at the Planck scale or below. That is why I put "infinitely" divisible in quotes. Infinity, as the interesting Wikipedia page you linked shows, is a logical and mathematical construct. To clarify "analog", I was using the term "analog" not as a distinction between continuous matter (which does not exist) and quantized matter. I was using the term analog to distinguish representation of the signal as a "continuous" trace in a medium versus digital representation obtained by quantization of the signal to binary at a much grosser scale than atomic or molecular.

The quantum or classical geometry and dynamical interactions imperfections give rise to inhomogeneities and randomness at a grosser scale than individual atoms and molecules (crystal lattice defects per cubic mm, etc.) so numerous we can only estimate them using mathematical methods of statistical and condensed matter physics. So the vinyl groove geometry has many imperfections due among other factors to the random noise in the master-cutting and vinyl-pressing processes. It does not represent reality exactly, but only in an approximate way, in fact with more error than 16/44.1 digital representation.

Notwithstanding my previous post, I acknowledge the historical importance of vinyl LPs, analog tape, vacuum tubes, etc. They were revolutionary, served humanity for decades, and enabled tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of people to enjoy much music that they (me included) would not have otherwise been able to during those times. The inventions of sound and image recording and reproduction technologies greatly impacted human life and culture.
 
^ Thanks to all.
The picture is now much clearer.
 
Infinity, straight lines, circles, ellipses, etc. are all mathematical constructs abstracted from (inspired by) the physical world, existing only in math books and communications and in brain patterns of people thinking about them. In the real physical world, no perfect straight lines and no perfect circles of macroscopic size are to be found. You can approximate them increasingly better with macroscopic physical objects, but at greatly increasing costs and sophisticated engineering and manufacturing technology. With reference to the OP's thread title, is anyone willing to pay Hubble Space Telescope prices for vinyl LPs that can give playback accuracy equivalent to that of 24-bit/96kHz? We have giant advances in electronics and computer technology in the 20th century onwards to thank for the low cost of accurate digital storage and reproduction. If we were still using electric relays and vacuum tubes in computers, then yeah vinyl and vacuum tube analog might indeed be the economical alternative for a given accuracy level. Neither digital nor analog methods will give us perfect sound reproduction, due to inherent noise. We should relax and stop obsessing about unachievable perfect reproduction of sound. The variability of musical performance even from take to take in any particular studio session makes perfect reproduction meaningless.
 
Last edited:
. . . The variability of musical performance even from take to take in any particular studio session makes perfect reproduction meaningless.
Not to mention the extreme variability [and inherent distortions] of microphones, mixing boards, signal processors, amplifiers in the signal chain, eq, etc . . .
 
I did buy a 80€ (I think?) LP of Gorguts' "Obscura" without even having a turntable, so I won't laugh. But I don't see the point of collecting something that isn't rare (and not particularly good music either, but that's another story).
I bought my first LP of my life when I hadn't yet had a turntable. (Queen - Play the Game)
 
Not to mention the extreme variability [and inherent distortions] of microphones, mixing boards, signal processors, amplifiers in the signal chain, eq, etc . . .
Dont know how the artists tools ( even distortion) equate to final reproduction. The point of perfect reproduction is to hear what the artists want you to hear. And thats not ticks and pops or wow and flutter.
 
Dont know how the artists tools ( even distortion) equate to final reproduction. The point of perfect reproduction is to hear what the artists want you to hear. And thats not ticks and pops or wow and flutter.
If the music is something like a piano quartet, or a solo classical guitar, then there is the hope that one would have a successful simulacrum. When such instruments are recorded, they should closely resemble the sound heard "in situ". But Lady Gaga? There is no real standard, not even the artists or producers. The hope, in the case of that kind of music, is that the music will sound good on all equipment. But no one could say a particular mode of playback is really "accurate" for heavily processed pop because the final determiner of the mix might have been Auratones.
 
Last edited:
Yes I read about it.
But even math has it's errors.
For example it can't get pi exactly right.

That statement fascinates me. It is not just wrong, it is wrong in a way that suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are talking about. It is beautiful in a way.

Nyquist work is not in question, and stands. The issue is the low pass filter. That's all I will say on that subject.
 
The article in the Times made me angry. Guy reproduces other people's art with exacting detail using ancient equipment and then sells the result to people with far more money than good sense (the same money could be given away to the needy).

The people in the article reminded me of anthropologists who can make flint tools. They spend hours reproducing what our ancestors did in seconds, to produce a product they would have thrown away just as quickly but modern collectors will pay millions for.

Except this anthropologist is studying what life was like in the 1950s.
 
But no one could say a particular mode of playback is really "accurate" for heavily processed pop because the final determiner of the mix might have been Auratones.

Philosophical question: do you think it would be fair to say the "accurate" sound is what matches the mixing engineers' monitors?

I have suggested as much as a defense for studio monitors and been attacked by audiophiles before...
 
[QUOTE="MattHooper, post: 390639, member: 5908]
Well, your prediction has failed the test of reality.
I don't think so. The test of reality is the marketplace. There are still more new CDs being sold than new LPs. And streaming clobbers both. The resurgence of interest in LPs makes for great copy, but the interest isn't as great as the hype leads one to believe. No one wants to write about the vast numbers of used CDs bought, ripped and then returned for 75% refund. Doesn't make for good copy.
 
Philosophical question: do you think it would be fair to say the "accurate" sound is what matches the mixing engineers' monitors?

I have suggested as much as a defense for studio monitors and been attacked by audiophiles before...
They all use a bunch of different "monitors", like the car stereo or auratone standard along with those studio monitors. The standard often is "is this brickwalled enough for FM?". Philosophically, there's no there there, just the hope the recording moves units.

Studio monitors can be fine or bad, all depends on application and what you want. But with pop recordings, if you like what you're hearing, stick to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom