 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2003-07-10 19:45
Yes, I know its a long summer, but.....
Would anyone care to comment on the difference between hearing a clarinet recorded on CD vs. an analog album---my opinion is that the analog recording reveals more complex overtones and shading....any opinions?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vic
Date: 2003-07-10 19:53
Gosh, wjk, you really need to find a hobby of some kind.
In any case, I've never been able to tell the difference. I know folks who insist that they can, but I'd like to put them to a test. To me, it's just another case of: "Things were better in the old days." Sure they were. And I used to walk twenty miles to school, also. In the snow. Barefoot. On the other hand, I guess I'm one of the guys who insist that Artie Shaw was the best clarinestist there's ever been, or ever will be.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2003-07-10 20:31
Re: I "need to find a hobby of some kind".....
Gosh, I didn't realize this was the Psychotherapy bulletin board!
Thanks for the advice!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vic
Date: 2003-07-10 20:38
I'm not actually a psychotherapist, I just play one on TV.
Anyway, I was trying (possibly failing) for a weak bit of humor. Actually, it's a good question you asked, and I'm interested in hearing some other viewpoints. I maintain that blindfolded one couldn't tell the difference, except for the snaps, crackles, and pops on the vinyl.
No charge for the advice, by the way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2003-07-10 21:26
And what TV show would that be Vic, "The Edge of Nothing" or "As the Stomach Pumps"? Just kidding, a career in TV sounds exciting. I think it would be interesting to directly compare duplicate vinyl and CD recordings blindfolded, or with the lights off to hear for any nuances. I think I will, and use my 1973 white vinyl Dutch Edition of "Dark Side of the Moon" with the Floyd standard American CD release. v/r Ken
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vic
Date: 2003-07-10 21:45
Ken - I've never been on TV in my life. I have a day job at a large aerospace firm and moonlight as an adjunct professor of business. But I'll be eager to hear the results of your test. I'd do it myself, except I'm not sure what ever happened to my turntable.
Odd, there hasn't been more response to this thread.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Burt
Date: 2003-07-10 23:20
I can't tell the difference between a clarinet on a record or a CD. The only medium I can hear a difference is a bad tape deck, where a very undesirable vibrato is added. I had this on my live recordings until I bought a mini-disk recorder.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-07-11 04:36
This isn't really about Cd/Records... but sorta similar... I once had someone tell me that CD recordings sound better than mp3s.... He said it had to do with the sampling rate when they're converted or something... I sorta zoned out after that.... = ) I rip all of my clarinet CDs onto my computer (in mp3 form) and have NEVER noticed a difference... Just thought we might add this twist to the discussion.
Don -->theclarinetist@yahoo.com
PS - Speaking of the old days, I've never even heard a record of clarinet playing... to me the "old days" in casette tapes!! = )
PPS - If anyone finds that mp3s are a lower quality... do they return to their higher quality when burned onto another CD, or is it like making a copy of a copy.. worse each time? Just curious...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CrazyCanuck
Date: 2003-07-11 04:41
Hopefully this will be a better answer to your question! I am by no means an expert, so feel free to correct me.
Most... most CD's are simply recordings of analog records/tapes onto CD's so those ones you shouldn't be able to tell much difference (they can edit out most of the scratches and distortion. As records age, the grooves the needle rides in wear down, and you get distortion that way too.
The newer recordings (only on CD) are recorded in fancy recording studios on gagillion dollar microphones with absolutely no background noise (see if you can hear the key noises and breathing sounds... sometimes even those aren't present.) What this means is you are only hearing the clarinet sound.
As well as this lack of any background noise, the producer or mix-master (not rap guy :P) can edit the noise the clarinet makes to quite an extent. They can (don't always) auto-tune every single note, patch in certain phrases if they didn't turn out quite right) etc...
Having said this, in my humble opinion, the best recordings are live ones that go straight onto CD (or record/tape for that matter,) with minimal editing done to them... more similar to those old analog recordings, but using those fancy microphones so the general sound quality is better.
I have also heard people say that analog sounds more rich, and I agree... but really what is richness when it comes to sound!!! could be debated for ages.
Hopefully gives you a quick and dirty answer to a very complex issue, others feel free to correct or add to my blabberings
Nick
Post Edited (2003-07-11 04:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-07-11 12:19
Well, there are honestly too many variables to count. Assuming you started with the same source material, the sound on a LP is somewhat more limited in terms of dynamics (72dB) vs. the theoretical range of a CD (96dB). That being said, a lot of studies have concluded that it is easier for the human ear to hear through the random noise of a tape or a record than the noise floor of digital. There are now a lot of dithering algorithms available (sorry if this is too technical) that attempt to solve this problem so that you can hear that last bit of microdynamic detail that vanishes into the digital noise floor but is still there on a record adding to the perception of greater analog detail.
When you chop up the signal into discrete bits of data, the stuff in between gets lost. That is why many describe digital is "brittle" or "hashy" because the quantization of sound loses some data and introduces other noise artifacts. The appeal of the new technologies (SACD and DVD-A) is that they digitize at much higher rates so those nasty side effects go away and you get a much more natural (or some would say "analog") sound.
For the most part, we are using the same microphones (and I mean "the same" as in vintage) that were used back in the day. They are very quiet and very detailed. All that has changed is the medium for capturing and editing the performance (computers vs. tape or acetate).
WJK, the only way you can really assess the difference is to start with a CD and a LP of the same performance and where you know the differences in the signal chain. Most of the effect you describe, if indeed you would hear that difference between recordings of the same performance, may be ascribed to euphonic distortion from the record player/stylus, or a really bad CD player.
When I record clarinet (which is frequently) I find that the difference between the "live" analog sound (monitored without digitizing) and the digital versions are virtually indistinguishable at high bit rates (96kHz/24bit). When I downsample to CD rate, I lose that last bit of microdetail in dynamics and note transitions, and lose a little of the air around the instrument. No characteristic changes in the quality of the overtone series appear. Mind you these observations are made on extremely high end equipment which takes some of the impact of the delivery device out of the sound.
Gosh, I need a hobby too -- that was too darned long a response. Hope you found it illuminating nonetheless. Enjoy listening!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence
Date: 2003-07-11 12:37
The digital sampling rate is too fast for the human to follow. The differences that are heard are not in the digital process but in the preparation of the signal by the human.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-07-11 13:13
I don't entirely agree. While a human cannot directly perceive the discrete samples since the Nyquist limit (1/2 the sampling rate) is set above the theoretical highest perceived frequency, quantization error, jitter, and inefficiency of the low-pass filter in the D/A converter introduce a number of distortion and noise artifacts that are very much perceived. In 1983, CD "Perfect Sound Forever" was a myth that is now debunked. The technology has improved, and we have all learned a great deal about what humans really can hear -- hence better converters, better codecs and filters, higher sampling frequencies, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rene
Date: 2003-07-11 13:23
theclarinetist - no, MP3s expanded to CD do not get back to what they were. What is lost is lost. However, most people agree that MP3 at 192 KBit/sec quality is as good as CD. At 128 KBit/sec you may notice a difference listening side by side.
To the LP friends: My theory is that people got used to the typical LP distortions like rumbling and white noice. Only very high quality LP players and absolutely good records are free of that. So they miss that on CD. It is like using those old amplifiers with bulbs to get the right sound. Ok, it is only a theory.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2003-07-11 14:21
As usual, some incredible and brilliant responses. Thank you all!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eileen
Date: 2003-07-11 15:21
When I have listened to the same album on vinyl and on CD, the vinyl sounds much warmer with a more pronounced bass. The CD is often overly bright. One explanation for this is the frequency range. Look at the specifications for your CD player. Then look at the specifications for the cartridge for your turntable (assuming you have invested in a good quality cartridge). The cartridge typically extends to frequencies below that of the CD player. It's been a few years since I purchased my CD player so perhaps the standard frequency range has improved. And, if you're listening mostly just to the clarinet, the lower bass frequencies aren't as big an issue so maybe it's not as obvious. I really noticed the difference on recordings by the Who where Entwhistle's bass parts seemed to get lost on the CD.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-07-12 00:56
I"ve noticed that higher tones cause my "cat's hair" to jump off the crystal.
Bob A
Post Edited (2003-07-12 00:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
