• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why do we tube lovers love tubes?

I haven't read that - do you have a date or reference?

I have heard it in LP versus CD. LP's hold much less information than CD's.
You can make a CD of an LP and in blind tests subjects can't tell the CD from the LP.

Lossless formats used by newer audio players even have more information. But it highly improbably anybody could actually hear it. Good specs though.

This post runs contrary to everything I've ever heard about records vs. CD's... Ie.

"The subjects of sampling frequency and dynamic range are important for any sampled time domain signal. In the CD audio format, these are set in stone and cannot be changed. I think these issues give some credence to the claims that vinyl is better than CDs.
According to the Nyquist Theorem, to capture a time domain signal in discrete form and reconstruct it from these samples without loss, the rate of sampling must be 2 times the highest frequency present in the time domain signal. CD audio is sampled at 44100 Hz. Therefore, a audio signal could have frequencies up to to 22050 Hz and be captured perfectly in sampled form. This signal can then be reconstructed mathematically using a series of weighted sinc functions. I won't go into the details, but I really mean perfectly (you audiophiles can argue this point all day long but you'll be wrong). The Nyquist Theorem is discussed in excessive detail in most signal processing textbooks.

There are two problems with a fixed sampling rate though, higher frequencies present in the audio signal and the electronic system used to recreate the signal from its samples. Sometimes there are frequencies higher than 22050 Hz in audio; the lucky among us may be able to hear them. When a signal like this is sampled, these frequencies which are higher than the Nyquist Frequency are aliased and wrap around in the frequency domain, smearing together with other, lower frequencies. This causes distortion. Secondly, even thought you can mathematically reproduce the signal with sinc functions and so on, the actual electronics (your CD player, using sample and holds, filters, etc) don't do it perfectly. Add in more distortion.

Dynamic range is another issue with CD Audio. It's 16 bit, so the samples themselves can only occupy a discrete value between 0 and 65535. The entire set of waveforms in an audio signal (parts in an orchestra, for example) has to be sampled and fit to a value in that range. Measurable sampling noise is a result of this operation. This is yet another source of nastiness in the reproduced audio. And think about it, is 2^16 values really enough to capture all the ranges in full bodied sound?

In my opinion, CD audio is very good but is probably limited for some types of music. When an audiophile says they can tell the difference between vinyl and a CD, they probably can. The super-CD format (22 bits I believe) is far better in terms of dynamic range and sampling. This may be able to fool even the best ear."
 
Ironically, though, the compact disc medium tends to have better dynamic range and frequency response than vinyl recordings do.

As seamonkey said, you can transcribe a vinyl recording to CD and have it sound indistinguishable from the vinyl. Some vinyl enthusiasts actually do that to get vinyl "sound" without its mechanical fragility.
 
Thanx for explaining , I didn't got that one .....

English not being my main tongue , I miss some jokes sometimes......:help:

Gee, I didn't get that one either. I suppose it's not surprising nobody got my attempt at subtle commentary on the "real thing" vs "emulation" in the 2 pics I posted... under the right testing conditions, it may be impossible to tell the difference, even if the "emulation technology" still has a little ways to go.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9403893&postcount=494
 
I don't care if she is missing an arm...she is a hotty!

:hiding:
Yup red hot.
This is my friend Louise and she is red hot and all tube:
um6MjG173223-02.jpg

:D
 
Ironically, though, the compact disc medium tends to have better dynamic range and frequency response than vinyl recordings do.

As seamonkey said, you can transcribe a vinyl recording to CD and have it sound indistinguishable from the vinyl. Some vinyl enthusiasts actually do that to get vinyl "sound" without its mechanical fragility.

This only works if you are talking about pop or rock. music with extended low average volume passages may do better in teh vinyl medium. When represented in digital form for every couple of db you are below 0dbfs you are basically throwing away a bit. When you get down low enough you are no longer 16 bit, but 8 bit! Even at 44.1k 8 bit is awful. With analog media such as vinyl you are essentially representing the audio with the same resolution regardless of the level at which it is recorded, though when you get closer to (and into) the noise floor this is less apparent.
I used to try and draw parallels between solidstate/tube and digital analog. It is tempting but the metaphor holds no water. Solidstate and tube amps are essentially analog. Digital is just digital. I am not going to say it sucks, because then I would have to dismiss 99% of my recorded work, as well as almost all of the bands I have recorded. But it is much harder to get a good sound out of digital. I have recorded thousands of hours of guitars and drums. Even with great mics and pres it takes more work to get it to "come out" then it does when you print to a nice analog machine. The nonlinearities of an Ampex or Studer give us the illusion of better fidelity. I like that illusion. Wish I could afford it every song I record.
Digital is much more cost effective, more accessible, takes less maintainance and less space.
Wait it is starting to look like the tube/ss & analog/digital metaphor can retain water after all.
 
i'm typing on what i record with ;) it certainly doesn't sound like those 24 track reel to reels, though. don't care, though. it sounds good enough to record music that nobody will ever hear on any meaningful scale ;)
 
sorry john...hope that didn't come off insulting or anything. you probably record stuff there that people will actually hear on a meaningful scale, so i wasn't trying to imply anything. me, i know my role...got no interest in running a studio as a business, and nobody's beating down my door looking for music that i record, except occasionally howard stern.
 
digital smidgital. this is what i use (and it sounds BIG!):

3M-M79s.jpg

Yes! It's been over a decade since I've recorded on tape. I recently did a project with an old Studer 24-track, I realized how much "bigger" tape sounds without sounding unnatural. I think more people are starting to understand that the "big boys" aren't just using tape for fun or snob appeal. The sound is incredibly relevant, just not very accessible.....for now anyway.
 
Yes! It's been over a decade since I've recorded on tape. I recently did a project with an old Studer 24-track, I realized how much "bigger" tape sounds without sounding unnatural. I think more people are starting to understand that the "big boys" aren't just using tape for fun or snob appeal. The sound is incredibly relevant, just not very accessible.....for now anyway.
You have to get a lot of real analogue bits like audio transformers and great old varimu compressors and try very very hard to get anything like the same density and feel as a proper quality 2" 30 ips machine.
Cost and workflow and compatabillity forced me Protools digital back in 1995 I had an old MTR 90 Mk 11 personally.
We had a brand new Studer a 800 when I started at polydor in 1977 but I liked the old M79 we had as well, anyone remember phase locked loop sync?.:hmm:
PS johnK-10 Current thread your machines Gearsluts:
Invalid Link Removed
 
Actually, no; it works most impressively with classical and other acoustic music with wide, uncompressed dynamic range.

+1
There's a long but fun AES recorded presentation by Ethan Winer and others (you may have been there)

And bit depth of a CD more than adequate.

It's fun to see big old tape recorders with Solid-State electronics like the above still around, but the youtube video get's into even cheap audio cards on a PC are very good and can do multiple analog to analog bouncing and hardly degrade the sound at all. Everybody has room and can afford a good PC these days. And many mastering plugins can add in the tape saturation distortion just like the real reel tape.
 
And many mastering plugins can add in the tape saturation distortion just like the real reel tape.

maybe to you, but IMO, they're a cheap imitation, since i haven't heard one yet that sounds like real 2" tape.
and do they add the sound of a 24 track 3M or Studer input and output amplifiers as well? IME, i don't think so.
 

Latest posts