Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site drux3.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!drutx!drux3!trb From: trb@drux3.UUCP (Buckley) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Reply to rabbit!jj re. digital vs. analog Message-ID: <1054@drux3.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 20:09:36 EST Article-I.D.: drux3.1054 Posted: Tue Feb 7 20:09:36 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 03:30:45 EST Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 162 Dear Mr. Johnston, This is a long letter, but I hope it will explain why I hear what I hear, what I listen to, and why I believe the majority of people in this discussion never understood what Phil Rastocny was trying to say in the first place. I'm not going to challenge your technical qualifications. The very fact that you're an engineer with Bell Labs should say enough. I do fail to see, however, what your telephone digital signal processing work and high-fidelity dsp have in common in terms of this discussion. And even so, my belief is that it doesn't take an engineering whiz to evaluate high-end audio gear, specifically the differences between analog and digital. All it takes is a good ear, and a knowledge of what to listen for. I used to be a trumpet player. I have a friend that custom-made trumpets for a living. They cost about $1200.00 each, and were mechanically perfect. He knew an amazing amount of physics of how a trumpet worked, what metals made what sounds, and what method of tempering the bell produced what tones. There is probably no one any MORE knowledgeable about the trumpet technically than he. However, he could barely play the thing. No real talent for music. But he DID have a good ear! Friends of mine, however, who are professional trumpet players barely know anything about the trumpet other than how to oil the valves. Yet, they know what SOUNDS right, and one friend tried THIRTY-SEVEN trumpets right off the assembly line at Schilke, Inc., before he found the one that sounded right. All were consecutive serial numbers, all made with the same materials and manufacturing processes. Yet, they did sound different (I did a test like that myself, once). Again, it didn't take a scientist to figure out what sounded right. You questioned whether I REALLY knew what live music sounded like. Well, here goes. I DO regularly listen to live music. I was both a professional and a student musician, and many times a week I get to hear live music in many varied settings. I KNOW what a trumpet should sound like. I KNOW what a cymbal and high-hat should sound like, and I can tell the difference between some of the top brands of cymbal makers. And, if you want to start throwing questionable- relevance qualifications around, the hearing in my left ear rolls off at 17.1 kHz, and my right ear at 19.2 kHz. I also have perfect pitch. Here in Denver is an old, restored movie house, called the Paramount Theatre. It's now used mainly for concerts. The Paramount is one of the most acoustically perfect buildings in existence; possibly as good as Carnegie Hall. It is the only other theatre in existence, along with Radio City Music Hall, to have the twin Wurlitzer organs still intact and functional. One of the world's biggest jazz impresarios, Dick Gibson, lives in Denver and puts on a series of Gibson Jazz Concerts in the Paramount. There are six a year, and I have been going (along with Phil Rastocny and others) for the past four years, in the 4th row, center seats; seats which I specifically requested after having been to a number of various concerts there. The amplification at these concerts is very subtle, and is the best amplification of acoustical instruments I have ever heard. In these concerts we have heard an incredibly wide variety of jazz musicians, and I personally have entered into another dimension of realization of what instruments really DO sound like. There's nothing like the listening experience of hearing two different sounds come out of the SAME drum set, as you compare Louis Bellson with Shelly Manne. Phil Woods has a unique alto sound that is recognizable anywhere, and Bill Watrous a tone quality unmatched by any other trombone. After a while, you get an appreciation of what each instrument should sound like, and even the differences, no matter how subtle, between musicians of the same instrument (I'm talking sound here, and not style). You suddenly realize the wide array of harmonics that can come out of trumpets and saxophones, and you suddenly hear a new musical experience when something is played at very low volume levels, say, for instance, Scott Hamilton in a slow part of a ballad, or Harry "Sweets" Edison playing his trumpet barely audible with a harmon mute and no amplification. So, when I sit down to listen to one of my 1300 some jazz and classical albums, I know what to expect. I can take one record of a musician whom I am familiar with, Sarah Vaughan for example, and play it on many systems until I hear it, that TRUE live sound. I was never brought up on stereos and records and FM radios. I was brought up in a musical family, and have been surrounded with live music all my life, and I know what something SHOULD sound like, not just what we LIKE it to sound like. I have attended more live concerts and performances in more places in my life than many professional musicians ever play at. FM radio and top-40 albums have made us a generation of boom-chinkers, where all we like is bass and treble, and to hell with the fidelity, the soundstage, and the sonic accuracy. Now, on to why digital has some problems, and why current state-of- the-art analog is still FAR superior! I have heard Harry James live many times. Harry had a full, unmistakable sound. The ONLY recording I have EVER heard that captures the trumpet EXACTLY how it sounds live is the Sheffield Lab "King James Version." And what makes a trumpet sound like a trumpet is the high end harmonics. A good trumpet player could play into a spectrum analyzer and you would see all kinds of clean, high-amplitude harmonics. A good trumpet player, in the proper acoustical surroundings, could play a concert b-flat, and you could hear at least 3 octaves of b-flats above the dominant. Unfortunately, there wasn't a digital recorder there to record this at the same time, so we can't make comparisons. But, once you get the mental "picture" of what something should sound like, while listening regularly to live music to prevent losing that reference point, you can then evaluate ANY recording and ANY sound system as to their accuracy. Regular analog recordings rarely have accurate soundstage, due to recording engineers who don't know how to place mikes in a studio or concert hall. But digital recordings NEVER have accurate soundstage. They're always very flat, although admittadly, some are better than certain analog recordings, which sound like one mike was used. The only album I have ever heard to correctly capture the live soundstage is "For Duke" with Bill Berry and friends, a direct-to-disc recording. All the digital recordings I have ever heard, whether vinyl or CD, have no depth or "liveness" to them. Someone far more technically knowledgeable than I could explain the physics behind that; suffice it to say, I can hear the difference. I have NEVER heard anything but a tinny, raspy high-hat and cymbal on a digital recording. Even the best of the digitals, which are generally far better than most analogs, have never had a proper high hat sound. Then, try and listen to a low-amplitude section of a digital recording. It loses ALL semblance of sonic accuracy, and can be quite irritating to the ears. (Try listening to a digital recording of Sarah Vaughan as she vocalizes on a soft, slow song. Bleah!) Jim, I have many digital records, and have heard a good amount of CD systems. I like what I hear, generally. These recordings are usually far better than most analog recordings of today. But, state-of-the-art analog is still better, and will remain so for some time. I'm not attacking you personally at all. I'm certainly not going to debate technical matters with you, I'm surely not as knowledgeable about digital signal processing. All I'm trying to say is, you don't seem to know what to listen for. I doubt that you've begun to hear what I have, or ever will. I don't think you, or any other of the contributors, have that mental image of what things SHOULD sound like. I don't compare stereo to stereo, I compare the stereo to LIVE PERFORMANCES! I believe this is part of what Phil was trying to say. Do what you want with your electrical specs, but your ears are the final judge. If you have the ability to capture the mental image of sound, your ears are all you need. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Buckley AT&T Information Systems Labs ...ihnp4!drux3!trb