Applewood Road on Gearbox records.
It depends on how the original recording is made, but generally I would contend this is not true. Engineers have to perform a number of tricks to try to squeeze as much information as possible into the vinyl recording - including reducing the bass to one channel, reducing the volume of the bass and ensuring that the dynamic range is small enough to fit onto vinyl. That is quite apart from what has to be done to get RIAA curves sorted. Then you have the problem that the stylus is travelling across the vinyl at different speeds depending on where on the record it is. This means that its frequency response changes somewhat (or at least, the range of its frequency response).
I doubt it. I think that he was referring to whatever mixing and filtering the engineers did - and that applies to both digital and analogue. An advantage of digital here is that you have much wider dynamic range, and also generally a greater frequency range that you can play about with, if that is your wont.
Yes, not good that. Of course, they could have done that in the analogue arena, except that they had less room to play with there.
I think that you might misunderstand digital recording and playback.
1 Like
Lets just keep it friendly and agree to disagree.
So how does a 4bits and 8 samples per second fair against an analogue recording? 
Just playing Devilās advocate here! For each sample there has be a gap and the information iin this gap is therefore missing.
However even with 16/44100 there isnāt much missing
Was I being unfriendly? I didnāt mean to beā¦
2 Likes
Well, 4 bits and 8 samples per second is hardly the sort of thing that Shannon and Weaver etc. were talking about. So no, they would not fair well.
What is missing with 16/44100 compared with vinyl?
I was just exaggerating for effect. Increasing the sample rate to 44k means its almost analogue.
The missing bits are the bits between samples surely.
I havenāt mentioned vinyl??
It isnāt almost analogue - once it has been converted, it is analogue.
When you are at 16/44100 there are, effectively, no missing bits for the desired frequency range - up to 20 or 22 KHz.
To make it a reasonable comparison, youād have to compare that 4bit/8Hz recording to an analogue recording on something like a wax cylinder recorded at, maybe, 3rpm with a mid-pass filter chopping out everything apart from, say, one middle octave. Then both would be a long way short of what their formatās capable of and both would sound - in different ways - er, crap.
Not quite sure what that proves, other than the obvious fact that both formats can be restricted enough to sound dreadful.
Mark
So 16/44k āconvertedā would sound the same as the analogue master tape?
And a 24/96 version would be identical in sound to 16/44, based on what you have just said then this must be the case.
It was an intentional extreme example as explained above.
Why?
Isnāt this what you said?
Please not another riff on the analogue vs digital debateā¦
2 Likes
Sounds good, but - in that same spirit and just for the record - I disagree with at least 90% of your post 194.
Other than that, Iām 100% behind @Svetty!
Mark
Is that a cover if the Cheech and Chong classic?
Yes - that is not the same thing, though. You will be missing surface noise cf vinyl, for instance, and you wonāt have gone (twice) through the RIAA corrections. And you might have a better bass sound.
If you go higher sample rates than 44100, then you would be able to record higher frequencies - but they might not be there in the master tape, and almost certainly not on the vinyl. If you go to greater bit-depth than 16, then you could have greater dynamic range.
When people state preferences or myth as fact, then it seems reasonable to put alternative information forward. This is a thread about poorly recorded music. It seems reasonable to talk about ways in which it can be poorly recorded.
I know what you mean , itās just that belief usually trumps reality in this debate.
1 Like