Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

Terry

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
> I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
> copy them to my RX-505.
> If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
> it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
> instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
> analog sound?

the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
or run it through a tube amp.

___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>>I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
>>copy them to my RX-505.
>>If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
>>it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
>>instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
>>analog sound?
>
>
> the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
> have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
> or run it through a tube amp.
>
>
> -S
> maybe they wanna rock.
> maybe they need to rock.
> Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
> with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al:)

All these factors contribute to a less harsh delivery of sound to the ear.

CD

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

In article <ftgqs502apj@news1.newsguy . com >,
Codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
> >
> >>I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
> >>copy them to my RX-505.
> >>If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
> >>it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
> >>instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
> >>analog sound?
> >
> >
> > the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
> > have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
> > or run it through a tube amp.
> >
> > ___
> > -S
> > maybe they wanna rock.
> > maybe they need to rock.
> > Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as
> > fans is to rock
> > with them.
>
> The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
> range, saturated high frequency response et al:)

It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac . com > wrote in message
news:ftha5f025r3@news4.newsguy . com ...
> In article <ftgqs502apj@news1.newsguy . com >,
> Codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:
>
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> >
>> >>I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
>> >>copy them to my RX-505.
>> >>If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
>> >>it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
>> >>instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
>> >>analog sound?
>> >
>> >
>> > the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
>> > have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
>> > or run it through a tube amp.
>> >
>> > ___
>> > -S
>> > maybe they wanna rock.
>> > maybe they need to rock.
>> > Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our
>> > business as
>> > fans is to rock
>> > with them.
>>
>> The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
>> range, saturated high frequency response et al:)
>
> It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
> recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.

So it then appears to be the case that a more of less random change (by
going through the vinyl path) imposed on top of a music recording, makes it
(the music) sound more like 'acoustic' music. How fortuitous! :-)

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

In article <ftk20l02j8d@news4.newsguy . com >,
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline . net > wrote:

> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac . com > wrote in message
> news:ftha5f025r3@news4.newsguy . com ...
> > In article <ftgqs502apj@news1.newsguy . com >,
> > Codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:
> >
> >> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >> > Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
> >> >>copy them to my RX-505.
> >> >>If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
> >> >>it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
> >> >>instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
> >> >>analog sound?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
> >> > have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
> >> > or run it through a tube amp.
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > -S
> >> > maybe they wanna rock.
> >> > maybe they need to rock.
> >> > Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our
> >> > business as
> >> > fans is to rock
> >> > with them.
> >>
> >> The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
> >> range, saturated high frequency response et al:)
> >
> > It doesn't matter to (corrected) many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
> > recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.
>
> So it then appears to be the case that a more of less random change (by
> going through the vinyl path) imposed on top of a music recording, makes it
> (the music) sound more like 'acoustic' music. How fortuitous! :-)

You could say that about me if I believed (or ever stated) that vinyl
is, as a group, better than digital. I don't believe that, nor have I
ever said that.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

Jenn wrote:
> In article <ftgqs502apj@news1.newsguy . com >,
> Codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:
>
>
>>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
>>>>copy them to my RX-505.
>>>>If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
>>>>it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
>>>>instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
>>>>analog sound?
>>>
>>>
>>>the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
>>>have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
>>>or run it through a tube amp.
>>>
>>>
>>>-S
>>>maybe they wanna rock.
>>>maybe they need to rock.
>>>Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as
>>>fans is to rock
>>>with them.
>>
>>The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
>>range, saturated high frequency response et al:)
>
>
> It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
> recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.
Please don't take my comment as saying that analog is un-listenable
compared to digital.

Some of my favorite digital recordings were recorded to my computer
from the turntable or cassette. If it's the best version of a recording
I have, I'll listen to it and enjoy it. Hiss, rumble and all.

I even have some double copies of recordings, a CD and vinyl version. If
I feel that the vinyl version still sounds better, I burn a CD of it and
retire the mass produced CD.

Heck, I even enjoy itunes AAC 128kbps recordings. They're not perfect,
but they're quite good.

Through all this I hope I have conveyed the message that I do believe
that digital is better than analog, but you do have to work at it, just
as with anything. It is no way near the "perfect sound forvever"
simplicity that the marketing guys used when CD was first introduced.

CD

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:15:59 -0700, Codifus wrote
(in article <ftqg6v02hqr@news4.newsguy . com >):

> Jenn wrote:
>> In article <ftgqs502apj@news1.newsguy . com >,
>> Codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
>>>>> copy them to my RX-505.
>>>>> If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
>>>>> it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
>>>>> instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
>>>>> analog sound?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
>>>> have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape
>>>> or run it through a tube amp.
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> -S
>>>> maybe they wanna rock.
>>>> maybe they need to rock.
>>>> Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business
>>>> as
>>>> fans is to rock
>>>> with them.
>>>
>>> The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
>>> range, saturated high frequency response et al:)
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
>> recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.
> Please don't take my comment as saying that analog is un-listenable
> compared to digital.
>
> Some of my favorite digital recordings were recorded to my computer
> from the turntable or cassette. If it's the best version of a recording
> I have, I'll listen to it and enjoy it. Hiss, rumble and all.
>
> I even have some double copies of recordings, a CD and vinyl version. If
> I feel that the vinyl version still sounds better, I burn a CD of it and
> retire the mass produced CD.

Mercury Living Presence. Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony:
Stravinsky's "Firebird". The Classic Records Reissue on single-sided 45RPM
12" , 180 gram Virgin vinyl Vs. the CD mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine (the
original producer). The Classic Records vinyl is the best sounding commercial
recording I think I've ever heard. The CD (and the SACD) of the same
performance are mediocre.
>
> Heck, I even enjoy itunes AAC 128kbps recordings. They're not perfect,
> but they're quite good.

Can't agree with you there. I think they are unlistenable. Of course, I
suspect that this result would depend on the kinds of music one listens to.
Rock and pop might be acceptable downloaded from iTunes Music Store at
128kbps, but classical and film scores are awful.
>
> Through all this I hope I have conveyed the message that I do believe
> that digital is better than analog, but you do have to work at it, just
> as with anything. It is no way near the "perfect sound forvever"
> simplicity that the marketing guys used when CD was first introduced.

I make digital recordings of a big-band jazz ensemble, a symphony orchestra
and a classical wind ensemble. I give those organizations Red Book CDs, that
is to say, 16-bit, 44KHz - I.E. nothing special. What is special is that the
CDs I make of these recordings are made straight. No after-the-fact EQ, no
compression, no limiting. Sometimes the orchestra plays so softly that one
cannot hear it without the playback gain cranked all the way up, at other
times, "normal listening setting" for the volume control will have the
neighbors calling the cops. That is a case where I'm using as much of the
96dB dynamic range of the CD medium as the recording needs (I record in
24-bit or 32-bit floating). The sound I'm getting is stupendous, really first
rate. I have no doubt that correctly made, modern digital recordings are
superior to the very best that analog has to offer - even at 16-bit, 44KHz
sampling rate. Having said that, I must follow it up with the opinion that
90% of all commercial releases - on any label are junk. They are compressed
and limited and do not represent the master recording in any appreciable way.
You want to hear what CD is really capable of? Pick up Michael Tilson Thomas
conducting the San Francisco Symphony recording of Mahler's First Symphony on
the SFS label. Its dual layer SACD/regular CD and even the regular CD layer
has dynamic range that one rarely if ever gets on commercial CD. If it
doesn't make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, you're not really
an audiophile!

Like you said, digital is a better system of recording than is analog, but to
reap its rewards, you really have to work at it and do it RIGHT.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>>
> Can't agree with you there. I think they are unlistenable. Of course, I
> suspect that this result would depend on the kinds of music one listens to.
> Rock and pop might be acceptable downloaded from iTunes Music Store at
> 128kbps, but classical and film scores are awful.
>
You're right. I just realized that any classical music I have is
lossless. I guess this goes to show that the flaws in lossy
compression mask themselves adequetely well behind fast, percussive
music.

CD

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline . net > wrote in message
news:ftqg6v02hqr@news4.newsguy . com ...
> Jenn wrote:
>> In article <ftgqs502apj@news1.newsguy . com >,
>> Codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Terry <terry75115@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
>>>>>copy them to my RX-505.
>>>>>If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
>>>>>it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
>>>>>instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
>>>>>analog sound?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
>>>>have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape or run it
>>>>through a tube amp.
>>>>
>>>>___
>>>>-S maybe they wanna rock.
>>>>maybe they need to rock.
>>>>Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business
>>>>as fans is to rock with them.
>>>
>>>The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
>>>range, saturated high frequency response et al:)
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
>> recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.
> Please don't take my comment as saying that analog is un-listenable
> compared to digital.
>
> Some of my favorite digital recordings were recorded to my computer from
> the turntable or cassette. If it's the best version of a recording I have,
> I'll listen to it and enjoy it. Hiss, rumble and all.
>
> I even have some double copies of recordings, a CD and vinyl version. If I
> feel that the vinyl version still sounds better, I burn a CD of it and
> retire the mass produced CD.
>
> Heck, I even enjoy itunes AAC 128kbps recordings. They're not perfect, but
> they're quite good.
>
> Through all this I hope I have conveyed the message that I do believe that
> digital is better than analog, but you do have to work at it, just as with
> anything. It is no way near the "perfect sound forvever" simplicity that
> the marketing guys used when CD was first introduced.
>

I believe the implication is that the sound from a CD remains intact (or
perfect!) forever in contrast to the result of that after repeated use and
playing of a LP, which unlike CD, does not remain intact (or perfect!)
forever.

> CD

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Apr 6, 8:58 pm, Terry <terry75...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
> copy them to my RX-505.
> If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
> it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
> instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
> analog sound?
>
> Terry

My goodness! What a question!

Short answer is that the "analog" sound is a moving target depending
on the philosophy of the individual(s) involved. Does the playback
system serve as an instrument in its own right (add/delete/alter
artifacts), or is it to be entirely colorless, neutral, add/delete/
alter nothing? And as to the digital source, at what level of
quality?

Don't forget to add tubes to the mix when looking for "warmer, better"
sound.

If I were to render an opinion, a digital source will generally sound
the same however many times it is re-recorded from medium to medium
until it "falls off the cliff". Analog sources have a more continuous
degredation curve as they are re-recorded/transferred from medium to
medium. Much as with analog television - fringe areas will get ghosts
and poor images, but something gets through. Fringe areas with digital
television get nothing useful or everything useful with little
transition between the two states. (Think about that next year).

In any case the answer to your question is Yes and No.

By the way, a good system, analog or digital, will be merciless in
exposing poor sources. Digital or analog.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Apr 6, 8:58 pm, Terry <terry75...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
> copy them to my RX-505.
> If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
> it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
> instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
> analog sound?

If by "that analog sound," you mean tape hiss, high-frequency rolloff,
and wobbly wow & flutter, then you're in luck. Putting your newly
acquired MP3s on cassette will give you all of those things!

If what you're really after is "that vinyl sound"--surface noise, pops
& clicks, W&F, phase distortion, frequency response anomalies,
tracking error (have I missed anything?)--then you do indeed have to
start with a vinyl disk.

bob

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:18:29 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <fte6jl022pp@news1.newsguy . com >):

> On Apr 6, 8:58 pm, Terry <terry75...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
>> copy them to my RX-505.
>> If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
>> it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
>> instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
>> analog sound?
>
> If by "that analog sound," you mean tape hiss, high-frequency rolloff,
> and wobbly wow & flutter, then you're in luck. Putting your newly
> acquired MP3s on cassette will give you all of those things!
>
> If what you're really after is "that vinyl sound"--surface noise, pops
> & clicks, W&F, phase distortion, frequency response anomalies,
> tracking error (have I missed anything?)--then you do indeed have to
> start with a vinyl disk.
>
> bob

Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"
that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
people, I'm sure. If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
"right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.
Digital gets that no more right than analog, it just gets it wrong in a
different way. No audio system, analog or digital, tube or solid state sounds
like real music and it likely never will. Each person's exploration of the
possibilities that technology gives us determines which parameters of real
music are the most important to each. If digital gets you closer, fine. If
analog gives you a clearer glimpse of the muse, that's OK too. but either
way, there's no need for the sarcasm.

The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
compression. Its the old conflict between quality and quantity. Do you want
more of less or less of more? 3000 mediocre (or worse) sounding recordings in
your musical library or 1000 excellent sounding recordings. Seems to me that
those like our OP here who is looking to make MP3s sound more like analog is
engaged in an effort more akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic than
he is working on the problem of getting better sounding music. He is,
ultimately, barking up the wrong tree.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Apr 8, 6:15 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"  
> that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
> a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
> say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
> people, I'm sure.

Agreed, absolutely.

> If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
> "right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.

My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.

> The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
> compression.

Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
generations of analog tape? (I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.

bob

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

bob <nabob33@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On Apr 8, 6:15 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> > Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"  
> > that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
> > a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
> > say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
> > people, I'm sure.

> Agreed, absolutely.

But you aren't listening 'through and around' them. What you are liking
is THEIR effects on the recording.

> > If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
> > "right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.

> My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
> like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
> your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.

> > The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
> > compression.

> Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
> generations of analog tape? (I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
> I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.

I';d say he hasn't done any blind comparisons of good lossy encodings,
to their lossless counterparts.


-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.