Windom: Sound Impressions

I love that analogy!

1 Like

My theory:

Vinyl reproduces fundamentals properly. Even in the old “boom and sizzle” days of midfi audio, the fundamentals from vinyl were always present – the better your equipment, the better your fundamental reproduction.

I remember going into a audio store back when there were many, and thinking I was listening to a live performance of a solo sax. What I was in fact listening to was a small bookshelf system – no extended bass or treble. What the system got perfectly: fundamentals.

What makes Windom so special IMHO is the restoration of fundamentals – something that we all have become accustomed to NOT hearing with digital reproduction: we get sparkling highs, remarkable bass, but no fundamentals; that is, we hear overtones and undertones of fundamental notes but always a recessed fundamental, which is where all the power and excitement in music resides.

Again, me theory.

2 Likes

IMO quite the same measures improve digital and vinyl. Lower noise (inspite of vinyl having a much higher noise level generally), better channel separation etc.

IMO vinyl is not good because of its limitations (except maybe that some good distortion contributes), but mainly inspite of those limitations. I guess the secret lies in the different processes of producing its media and the different weaknesses it has within the playback process (which , although they are more obvious, somehow seem to often have a less harmful effect than the remaining weaknesses of digital, especially those existing before major anti jitter measures were applied)

2 Likes

I enjoy the term technostalgia used in the article to describe the nostalgic appeal of technology of one’s own past.

The arguments of vinyl v. digital are precisely the same as automatic v. manual transmissions in cars. Despite the fact modern automatics are demonstrably quicker and more efficient than manual shifting, manual adherents continue to argue shifting on one’s own is better.

Vinyl is inherently noisier than digital and has less dynamic range. There are additionally limitations in bass reproduction (volume, placement within the stereo image, etc.). Like tape, there is a degree of dynamic compression which occurs naturally. All of this, and other factors, lead to a sound some find highly pleasing. Others hear the limitations.

I find intriguing the repeated posts that the quieter the DSD gets the more it sounds like vinyl. I find each firmware update sounds better than the last, but it does not sound more like vinyl.

There is no good or bad in this regard. We should all listen to that we find most compelling. And a good number of us listen to both.

2 Likes

Maybe more like master tape?

No, more like what was placed on the CD.

Very little of what most of us listen to was ever on tape.

I suggest we not get bogged down in yet another vinyl v. digital discussion here. There are many threads on this topic, this one probably the best: click.

I think you put your finger on it, Mark. The more I read through the follow on responses the more it got me thinking about what I posted above. Your post got me to thinking about the many times I’ve heard master tape copies at Harry Weisfeld’s. That I think is a closer analogy to where the DS sound has been going. I think also Ted put his finger on where some of the difference is - vinyl (and tape), for whatever noise each may have, is different from noise generated by jitter and sampling non-linearities. Maybe it’s just best left as (IMO) Windom continuing the path to sounding more analog-like.

1 Like

We must be careful with definitions…a master usually is a work part, it still has to be mastered (unless it’s suitable for a flat transfer). It may sound less affected from following production processes, but not always what you’d like to hear on your setup.

So if something „sounds like the master“, this mostly isn’t a pure advantage and mostly not a suitable goal :wink: But it’s common hifi press jargon and therefore adopted everywhere.

You’re differentiating between a Mix Master and a final Stereo or Mono Master? Confused.

Interesting video from Paul…Live vs. analog.

I better refer to this (other than the small picture implies, it’s a short post about that matter from SH):

Just to bolster my point, those of you with access to a R2R recorder/player, play a R2R tape! The audible difference between a factory prerecorded tape and digital is stark – fundamental tones galore!!

Tape has its own problems, but fundamental reproduction is not one of them.

Right. Always been a PITA, as it is easy to confuse the Mix Master and the, uh…Mastered Master. Wish there was an entirely different name.

I fully agree with this. The goal for a recording shouldn’t be to sound like analog and even less like vinyl, but like live.

Digital should sound as much like analog as vinyl should sound like digital…namely in the other‘s strengths it didn’t reach yet.

I think we only cite a limited technology as reference because there‘s nothing else yet really existing, that betters it in the certain aspects we refer to. We seem to take something approachable and imaginable as reference instead of taking the real goal (maybe because we know that this is too far to be reached).

1 Like

Re: your last paragraph - I am SO glad soundmind doesn’t post in the Forums…:stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

1 Like

Know what you mean :wink:

For my part…we had it recently…I try to get my vinyl playback as near to digital‘s strengths as my digital playback to analog‘s. Both aim for live sound finally.

Right. I was in a nice place of balance last year, and it has tilted to and fro some in between, now coming back into balance with SPP and Windom working.

Of course there are loads of recordings that are not live in the usual/audiophile/classical sense. So rather than live, you’re going for the best reproduction of the sound of the Master.

Absolutely! For being able to play back or record like live sound, the producer of the microphones must have reached this goal first etc.

1 Like

For classical music at least, ambient noise is usually an integral feature of the recording, and sound engineers take care to make recordings of this for use in the editing to provide continuity in the gaps between tracks. I remember writing a letter to the Gramophone magazine several years ago bemoaning the common practice of fading down the ambient noise to zero between tracks, which simply makes the noise that much more obvious and annoying when faded back up. BIS CDs at the time were an honorable exception, and they even added a very long (20 seconds or so) stretch of ambient noise at the very end of the CD.

1 Like

This is very true for live concert recordings. I make certain to record stretches of ambient sound in the performance space when on-site. I then have nice stretches of relatively quiet (no HVAC noises, no audience noises, etc.) to use between movements, etc. if the actual sound between pieces or movements is distracting.

A great annoyance is good quality programs. When moved, pages turned, they make little clicks which sound like a digital error.

1 Like