So much so for the non existent qualities or "ethereal" one i speak about speaking of timbre, it seems they exist : «In short, timbre lives not in the audio signal or in a musical score but in the mind of the listener.» P.20 of this book....lower in the post... I will precise in the specific ears/ specific brain/ specific room of the "learning" listeners to be understood here by some.... Then to digitalize something so analoglike than timbre we must first recognize the phenomenon and define it with many descriptors.... The scientific theory of these mathematical descriptors is in progress say this first book about all aspects of the concept of timbre....I guess the digitalization modelization of timbre will progress also compared to the actual state indeed.... But it seems that it is possible that actual dac engineering being able to mimic analog turntable are not necessarily superior on all counts, all times, with any dac, in any room against any audio system....Too much factors.... Anyway it is each times our ears that decide if the timbre reproduction is natural or not, not an engineer on audiogon for us all, once for all, it seems.... Each/brain/ears/room are different, without speaking about the different dac, and different audio systems possible.... In one word: TIMBRE is not an "object" that engineers modelized easily once for all thanks to the Nyquist Theorem , it is first and last a learning complex process in variable acoustic environments for human ears....It is then human ears that decide if the timbre is rightly perceived or not ( it is also an objective/subjective interface problem)....The theorem is only about the relations of coding and sampling analog signals...Timbre is not simple signals sampling it is a bundles of acoustical phenomena in relation to an hearing system.... https://www.amazon.com/Timbre-Acoustics-Perception-Cognition-Springer/dp/3030148319 |
Timbre exists, or accurately the relationship between the various harmonics and their attack and decay. However, the properties that mahgister attempts to assign don’t exist. His failure to understand the underlying mathematical composition of signals and hence why digital is able to capture anything that can be called "timbre" in far greater accuracy than any current analog equipment, causes him to assign "ethereal" properties, that do not exist. I NEVER affirm in this thread that analog can do something superior to digital, only different...I never affirm also that digital cannot do what analog do for the timbre perception... Then dont put in my mouth what others speak about but not me... And the adjective analog or digital must be associated with many things that will intermix digital and analog qualities for example a vinyl digitalized read by a dac that will retranslate it, but also the vinyl that will play digitally masters vinyl, or digital cd playing a tube only audio system, the list is way greater of all possibilities etc... In my first point in my discussion with you i only put the fact that the perception of timbre is acoustically conditioned BY THE ROOM where timbre is evaluated, be it by analog or digital audio.... And the electrical and mechanical embeddings of the digital or analog audio system and the acoustical embeddings of the system in the room will have more impact on the timbre perception than the choice of a format digital or vinyl whatever... And no need of doctorate to know that the mathematical description of timbre by many mathematical descriptors is one of the most complex problem in acoustic linked to music, linguistics,neurology etc, then the engineering problem of the digitalization of any analog sources and the decoding of these digits to made them analog anew is ANOTHER problem tough linked to the first for sure.... My second point was only that digital cannot supersede analog phenomena completely, they are 2 linked faces of the sound phenomena in audio electronic, in the room and in the brain.... Like atoms which are particule and waves at the same time, sound is modulo Fourier analysis of time domain and frequencies particule like and wave like.... The " ethereal" properties you accuse me of associating with timbre perception are this subtle properties modified by an environment that constitute the fabric of instrumental music, and the fabric of phonology and phonetic complexities in all human languages... Assessing mathematically these subtle perceived properties with mathematical models are not a fad, but pretending like you that all these problems are answered once and for all, thanks to the mathematics of digital coding /decoding and filters, is simply confusing many problems and reducing them to one.... By the way these "ethereal" properties associated to the timbre perception are so real, that it will take neural networks and deep learning A.I. to appropriate them for recognizing purpose....Not only the Fourier analysis coding and decoding of digital tech.....The reason is simple: humans LEARN to perceive timbre....This learning process cannot be replace by digital codes only, the learning being associated with an acoustical environment.... Each format digital or analog has his advantages in audio perceived by some and not by others....Myself i think that digital is able to be on par with analog or vice versa with right choice of dac or turntable, but MOSTLY by a rightful triple embeddings of the system.... By the way when you speak of signal noise ratio dont forget that this concept and fact are not limited to electronical digital or audio component.... The signal noise ratio is also increased or decreased by the mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings of the audio system in a specific noisy electrical grid in a specific acoustically qualified room....The ears are also a measuring apparatus of signals/noise ratio.... This is WHY embeddings methods produce a greater impact on the listener than only the change of a turntable to a dac or vice versa.... Then my opinion being more subtle than what you caricature describe, i will be grateful to read it adequately put in your post.... By the way i dont doubt that you are more competent than me in audio, but that dont justify your rejection by the back of your hand of any other human experience because being illusory.... Audio it is my experience is more complex than we think....And some limited mathematics dont explain all sorry.... I just put my hand on this book : They dont say that rigorous description of timbre by digital coding exhaust the subject matter at all...On the contrary ...They dont say either that only the microphones locations is enough to capture the butterfly of timbre in the net of digitalization engineering....😊 They seems to speak about this "ethereal" properties that the ears/brain of humans must learn to survive... https://www.amazon.com/Timbre-Acoustics-Perception-Cognition-Springer/dp/3030148319 |
Alas! unbeknownst to most, embeddings methods are more powerful than using vinyl or digital format in the S.Q. increase and more powerful than most partial or even in many cases than a complete upgrade...
I am flabbergasted that in all this audio forums i am the only one to tell this tale...
«Nobody throwing rocks at you, you cannot be a prophet, only a deluded dude»-Groucho Marx speaking to me from his tombstone 😕🙃
|
Using the exact same mastering with MODERN digital SAMPLING, over several comparisons keeping my room and equipment static strongly favors the analog even though my digital setup is significantly more expensive and even “better” according to most. My conclusion is digital SAMPLING misses the instrument timbres and overtone interactions. Congratulations for your deep dedication to music... My experience DOES NOT contradict your experience.... It is only a different one... My modest but genially minimalistic designed NOS dac gives to me the instrument timbre and his overtones.... But not in the beginning....Why? My dac was enhanced greatly and all the other electronic components with it by being mechanically, electrically and acoustically rightfully embedded in my house/room... My experience is that MOST audio systems are not well embedded at all or at best not optimally embedded... Most dac also are not good one, being too harsh and unnatural like, thin sounding or overdetailed and lacking flowing life then they are not good in reproducing the subtle timbre dynamics........ My experience is the embeddings is more powerful than most electronic parts upgrade and sometimes rival the entire audio system upgrading, dac included.... Most people dont know that at all because they never experience it.... Even pro in audio underestimate that... I know that because in the last 2 years of listening experiments i transform totally my audio system without upgrading any part... To answer your post i must say, that in a minimally rightly embedded or not embedded audio system, with one of the many hyped- dac on the market that are not so good, the perception of timbre cannot be good... Thin, harsh, unnatural.... It is not suprizing than many people prefer the more robust vinyl format which is more resistant to the very vulnerable timbre rendition from a recording in analog or digital format....Analog being more robust for timbre perception sustenance in a bad acoustical room... But digital can rival vinyl nowadays and vinyl is not obsolete either but way impractical.... Happy new year and i wish you the best health prayers can buy for you.... |
The problem in assessing the alleged superiority of analog over digital or the contrary is simple to formulate:
Human hearings evaluation of an analog or digital format, in a specific room and in a specific electrical grid, is more impacted, unbeknownst to most, by the embeddings of the audio system, than by the analog or digital format itself most of the times...
The more important clue of a good S.Q. is the evalution of the naturalness of instrumental timbre...
But the experience of timbre in listening is influenced and conditioned by the mechanical, electrical and mainly acoustical embeddings of the audio system at least on par with the particular format to be evaluated...( without speaking of the specific hearing apparatus of any subject)
Then all those who pledge for an absolute superioriy of the vinyl over digital in ALL cases are going too far, over estimating their experience, which would be different in different embeddings or with different electronic components...
All those who pledge for an absolute superiority of digital over analog in all cases are similarly going too far for the same reasons...
The perception of timbre is one of the most complex matter in all acoustic pertaining to too many sciences to enumerate them...Linguistic, music, neurology and physics, mathematics and engineering being only the main one...
The complete description of the factors playing a role in the perception of timbre cannot be reduced to only digitalization method... The humain brain and his direct relation to the acoustic settings of his environment ask and solicit at the same times analog and digital functions, receptors and motors functions...
Then no single experience can establish the absolute superiority of a format....
The perception of a tone and his colored variation in time, timing with other colored tones or timbres, in a specific room, is a subjective phenomenon also; pretending in the absolute to reduce it to digitalization is only collapsing all the sciences and human experience implicated here in a engineering absolute pretense which at the end is only that: a pretense ignoring all that contradict it....
Pretending that vinyl is always and will be always superior, pertain to an illusion also, but a different one...One cannot extrapolate one experience to all other possible experience.....
Happy New Year.... |
If you are going to make stuff up to suit your view of the world, When i said that they are on par, i was not speaking about the technological possiblities, but of their different qualities contributing to the perceived phenomenon... You also make stuff up to suit your technological view of the world... I only say from the beginning that analog is not superior to digital in audio design, but i oppose the affirmation that all there is in sound is captured only and completely by digital cooking recipe....The brain is NOT a digital computer and the ears are not an analog mechanical engine.... |
The original phenomenon is not a signal, or if it is one, it is a complex one with digital and analog aspect link to acoustic of room and ears relation...
The acoustical timing of many events in the room constituting the "timbre" instrument for the brain analog and digital "computer" to speak metaphorically, cannot be reduced totally to only "digital timing" signals , the digital signals are also a timing approximation...They create a kind of noise of their own...
Digital and analog are necessary at the same time to understand the phenomenon.... It is the reason why digital or analog are on par and able to give each one something the other one cannot give...
You can call the analog way a "colored" taste, completely useless but it is not so simple....Ears are not replaceable by computers... It will be someday in some way, but it is not the actual matter of the thread to discuss the limits of this replacement...
|
I am glad to not be the only one to understand that in this thread.... 😁
Happy New Year to you....
«What is an engineer? Someone who reduce all phenomenon to signal controls or formats...
What is a scientist? Someone who can return back any signals to the context of his phenomenal origin without mixing them for purposeful limited results.. » -Groucho Marx epistemology
«I dont understand why Goethe said that there is no theory behind the phenomenon»-Harpo Marx
« Because the theory is always in front of the phenomenon idiot!»-Groucho Marx
«Is it not Thomas Kuhn philosophy of science one century before him?» Chico Marx
«Indeed this is it»-Groucho Marx
«History of science is science»-Goethe |
This is just trying to paint a fantasy brush onto reality. You don’t store sound, you store a signal, either analog of digital. The real concrete sound in a room is not a signal, digital OR analog, it is a phenomenon which can be reduced to a format for recordering purpose but can never be only a digital or an analog phenomena only... The ears hearing sound in a room use the 2 aspects of the phenomenon not only one analog AND digital... My thesis is simple: recording or listening format are different not superior.... Why ? because ultimately musical timbre is a human recognition phenomenon implicating not only what you called analog signals or digital signals but and it is what i affirm, the 2 simulataneously... It is the reason why in some conditions, some human prefer and vouch for analog; they are not right or wrong... I repeat i never afirm that analog vinyl is superior at all... But i cannot go with you in the absolute superiority of digital.... World is complex and any room/brain is a world in itself... In a word: sound phenomena need the 2 aspects to be described or recorded: digital and analog... A stick has 2 ends... « A polygon with an infinite number of faces never equal a circle» Nicholas Of Cusa « Sound is like a rolling ball... No, sound is like a bouncing ball... No, wait a minute sound is a soliton wave in a room or perhaps only in the brain »- Harpo Marx acoustical discoveries « It is all that at the same time brother, it is called timing»-Groucho Marx |
Digital perfectly preserves timing in the analog time domain The timing we speak about in the formation of timbre is an acoustical concrete perceived phenomenon in a room first with ears in the room, not first a sound phenomenon in analog format or digital format.... The acoustic of a room is not an analog format... The speakers/room analog waves timing needs the Fourier analysis of the ears/brain to become a perceived phenomenon..... Real sound phenomenon are not analog nor digital, they are the 2 at the same time....And none is superior to the other except in your head .... You look like the shaman in amazonia who shrink heads, you shrink sound phenomena in 2 competitive formats, analog OR digital, and declare one superior to the other.... 😊 OUf! |
In your dogmatic rant you conflate 2 different concepts of timing, the timing of bits flows, and the acoustical timing events linked to the definition of "musical timbre"...
And i never ever said that analog is superior to digital, you confuse me with some others audiophiles you seems to despise...
I am an audiophile myself but i dont think that analog/vinyl is superior at all...
I think that analog method for recording studio or for rendition in our room are different with their own advantages compared to digital... They are on par with different results...
Timbre is first an acoustical phenomena between room/instrument/ and ears, NOT at all an information process phenomena, being it analog or digital....
And some aspects of the complex acoustical timing events that are linked to the formation of timbre are well served on some aspect by digital recording method and differently by analog recording method, and also in the acoustic of the listening room, by a dac or a turntable and also by a tube or by a S.S. amplifier... It is not a question of subjective prefered colors taste, it is a question about the way the acoustical timing of the recording room making the timbre of the instrument will be listen more or less rightly so in the acoustical conditions of the listening room...
The timbre of an instrument is always evaluated by human ears in a specific acoustical room, never can be measured .... Then i dont speak about "COLORS" i speak about "TIMBRE" and timbre is not a set of complex phenomena reducible to frequencies ONLY.... This is why we speak about complex timing and the points number 3 and 5 in the wiki definition of timbre...
Try to be logical and less dogmatic....
OUF !
|
assigning terms like "naturalness of timbre" that are factually untrue does not change that. The timbre of an instrument will be recorded in a specific studio room with his peculiarities...And he will be listen to in a specific audiophile room... The recreation of this event , the timbre of a piano, will be relative not only to the mic but also the the geometry, and to the topology and content of the recording studio... Digital or analog will transport in their own way these signals, but their recreation in my room will be better or worst, not only because i use digital or analog, nevermind my choices,but because the acoustical embeddings of my room, and the machanical embeddings of my system, and the electrical noise floor of my house will give me better or worst conditions for the CONCRETE experience of listening the piano timbre... I dont think that there is an absolute superiority between analog or digital, only advantages or inconveniences for the listening Room/brain.... I maybe wrong, but i dont understand how.... 😁 Appendix: Timbre is complex phenomenon not reducible to frequencies only.... Wikipedia: - Range between tonal and noiselike character
- Spectral envelope
- Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
- Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
- Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration
Then when a Company like TACET use analog tubes only recording method it is because the analog recording method will be able to seize or grasp in a DIFFERENT way some aspect of the complex phenomena of timbre... They dont say that analog is absolutely better, they say it is absolutely different to record timbre with or without analog method... By the way "timbre" is not only a sums of frequencies it is an event in a SPECIFIC room not reducible to a mix of frequencies...Timbre is accurate not only by exact summation of the reproduced frequencies but also with some timing of mutiple events in the recording room... Then using analog recording method or digital one will make some aspect easier to be recorded and other aspect not so easier...."Real-time-timing-events" (point three and five mainly in the wiki definition of timbre) are not recreated in the same way with analog or digital recordings methods, because each one will analyze the timing events by focusing on different characteristics in the complex timbre phenomena.... NONE are superior......I repeat NONE are superior... My point is the same than you....Digital is in no way inferior.... But i add....Analog is in no way inferior too.... |
What is COMPLETE is the analog OR digital signals + their increased or decreased recording noise floor which are listened to in a room with his own increased or decreased noise floor....
GENERIC digital or analog signals must be listen to in SPECIFIC environment and they are recorded in SPECIFIC environment too...
No theoretic analysis can replace ears experience...
Then is digital superior to analog? No...
Is Analog superior to digital ? No...
They are two different, interesting, competiting medium then that can be chosen by our preference in a particular house/room/system embeddings...
Or they can be chosen by a recording company and this company is not made of fool that negate engineering ; TACET " tubes only" recording methods for example... I like their way to deliver timbre naturalness, especially of chord instrument like violins...It is possible to hear the difference even with a dac like i have in my system....
Most music is immersed now in a complex analog/digital chain.... Then.....
|
However, it is purely wrong to continue the belief that it provides a more accurate playback than modern digital. It does not. I think that digital can be on par with vinyl, but you are too harsh... Accurate is one thing, naturalness of timbre another, and the naturalness of timbre implies more factors than only accuracy of dac.... The complexity of this problem cannot be reduced to harsh choices...For example you cannot recreate the recording room atmosphere even with a good dac or turntable in a bad listening room and in a house with a too high noise floor and with too much vibrations and resonance in the different components.... I think like you that digital is not under vinyl at all nowadays, thanks to this technology... But analog cannot be dismiss by the back of the hand... For most ordinary listener, the complex intricacies of the factors imbricated makes any dogmatic affirmation only that: dogmatic... Musical sound is not reducible to electronic designed numbers, we must add many other factors in the equation.... An audio system exist in a room and in a house for some ears for example, not mainly on his blueprint measured design table.... A working audio system must be designed before playing, but it must be embedded somewhere in some way to be judged by some ears.... The embeddings ways ( mechanical electrical and acoustical)can transform ANY system to another level completely or limiting it in a destructive way.... This is the reason why reviews are anecdotal stuff only except treated statistically, and it is also the reason why judging audio system only by the design measured numbers is not enough at all... «Reality is not the iceberg peak»-Anonymus «Reality is not even the complete iceberg with the ocean»-Myself « Reality is everything, specially what is not "real"»-Groucho Marx |
I must be blessed. I have tried cleaning records every which way and it never makes a spec of difference.
It makes a difference when the turntable and the dac are not on the same level of quality but also if the room and house embeddings are not rightly installed in relation with the 2.... Happy New year... |
Good metaphor indeed and a true one....
But the pieces that fall off are now microscopic one and no more too big, dac technology has known an evolution,...
Then what is the difference between 2 load of bread, one that have lost no pieces, and one that have lost one thousand microscopic pieces that amount if we count them all to only a little flake or 2 ? And the pieces that fall off fall in the right time window , not at all instant out of any window so to speak....It is no more perceptible or way less at worst...
For the eyes no difference, the two bread are golden and crispy, for the ears samething...
happy new year....
Understand me right tough, i dont negate that the human ears can listen the differences, but i know for sure counting all the other important factors, including the many different possible dac, and the many ways to embed an audio system , this difference is not what Turntable afficionado say it is like stick like a bear nose sticking to honey... With the right dac and the right embeddings there is a difference that is like some flake add to a delicious bread.... No more.... And a badly embed turntable will sound worst than a good and rigthly embedded dac anyway... |
I think you know as I do mahgister how silly youtube videos are like this. The echo in the original track is intentional, it is part of the recording, though I believe there is a bit of evidence of additional room reflections where the microphone is.
There is other youtube files of this same song without this "echoing".... Perfectly listenable, contrary to some other youtube file of this same song, and of this youtube contest of 2 amplifier with an "echoing"... For sure youtube file are not very good one, especially to judge amplifier or anything through your own audio system... But some defect persist to any medium: harsh echoing, with unnatural timbre if they are there will be there for listening through retransmission to any good audio system... If i listen to it then hearing UNNATURAL sounds through my relatively "warm" and non fatiguing system then the fault cannot be my system.... Like i said my post dont want to be an attack toward a clearly very good and superior audio system than mine, but to his catastrophic acoustical embedding and probably a sensitive dac that would need like most, a careful mechanical and electrical embedding.... The possibility is also that the dac is not so good in the circonstance, i dont know what the dac is, but i suppose it is a very good one, then the room acoustic is the first culprit, and then the audio system all embeddings .... I dont think that what explain this "echoing" and unnatural instrument timbre is the microphone location only....Acoustical treatment are very powerful and the lack of them in some room is cataclysmic soundwise...And you cannot save a bad room with mic location only.....I dont underestimate acoustic after 2 years experiments in my own room with a complete transformation of my modest system to a new higher rung on the scale S.Q. with NO comparison between BEFORE and AFTER...Most people which dont experience this first hand cannot believe it...Acoustician knows tough.... I know then first hand by my experiments that ALL audio system at ANY price could be transformed completely by rightful embeddings.... For me it is the reason why no reviews of audio product are nothing more than anecdotes....Objective measured reviews tough are only speaking for good or bad design and not of the sound quality for real ears then cannot be complete without listenings,,,, Only the statistical numbers of positive or/and negative comments or reviews are of any significance... I wish you Happy New Year and the more health God can give to you.... |
@mahgister
Interesting you heard pretty much on this video what I did. Thanks i am happy that someone had really read my post.... Yes i think that in this case the room treatment is catastrophic and the dac and the audio system is not well embedded if this is probably a very good dac like it seems... Any room treatment must be adressed in a small room (unlike in a theater or vast concert hall where reflective surface and synchonization of waves dont play the same game) to the specific audio system and to the geometry and topology and content of the room...I learn myself for the last 2 years how to acoustically embed my own room and it is not a " formula" you can sell like some affirm it to be....It is different for each room.... Applying a computer formula in a small room will not do it... Ears are Ears and we must wait for acoustical A.I. that is not sold for the moment... 😁 In this case i think a turntable would had been better, because in general analog is more robust to attack from a too cold and harsh room, not because digital is harsh in itself, but because a natural musical instrumental timbre digitalization apparatus is not a so well spread product anyway, and the way to embed a dac is not understood at all...like for the audio system embeddings anyway...Then even good dac need help.... But analog or digital anyway need badly mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings... Thanks for your confirmation of my impression... Like i already said this audio system in youtube is vastly superior to mine ( a low cost one) BUT is badly embedded and it is easy to listen to this fact.... I am not alone.... Thank you michelle....😊 Happy New Year.... |
I think these forums are often just a window for lonely older men to try to connect with others..... what do you think most forums are? a free advertisement for electronic parts by ordinary dude that boast their amplifier? Or is it an audio engineer only forum here? No it is a place where anybody can explain freely his experience and ideas mainly about audio for sure... Age has nothing to do with that but for sure i am old and i have time for music .... My posts said something about exactly why for most people this debate analog/digital has no meaning.... Answer to that.... And dont give me lesson in elliptical rhetoric or about old age... |
@mahgister -- you’re telling us about your system again. Can we confine conversations a bit to the topic? It really does get long... Sorry you dont get my point right, but i dont speak " explicity" about my components, except saying that they are low cost, but about the impact a bad embeddings can have on a very costly system... Perhaps you dont like my "long" posts but it was never about my system but about the way a bad acoustical room can impact a digital or analog system....I spoke about the way to embed ANY system NOT about my particular system ... Do you understand that? The adress in my post was about an interesting youtube example not about my "ordinary" but well embed system... |
Wow! i just listen this comparison between highly costly amplifiers on youtube.... And even through my audio system i can listen to the unnatural timbre of the voices and instruments and the choice of details over the flowing musicality...I know for sure that this audio system will be very much fatiguing for me....Amazing...The same files playing on my system dont sound so unnatural.... Give it to me and with my embeddings methods and controls i will set it correctly.... For now it is horrible for the price paid...What i dont understand is that the organizer seems very happy with that....🙄 I think that they dont listen music they look for details....Perhaps their youtube recorded files is not good? if i compared with the normal youtube file of Dire Straits it is way better....Then the room where it is recorded for their amp comparison is acoustically non treated one or badly treated indeed ( i hear too much echoing )... The ordinary Dire Straits on youtube is not fatiguing at all ... I think that they use a dac with digital files, in these case a turntable would do better it seems or my low cost NOS dac... 😁 One of the amp is a Mephisto : 55,000 us dollars.... My own system value is 500 hundred dollars....😊 Spare your money all of you, dont upgrade, and instead embed what you already own rightfully...Be it vinyl or digital... 😎 I am not so surprized, there exist also a video with one million dollars system on youtube that did not sound natural even through my own audio system.... My audio system is musical, natural more warm than dry, with plenty of details but any timbre is natural sounding and incarnated and not cartoonishly detailed with no flesh on the skeleton...My imaging and soundstage fill all my room... This system in youtube also for sure but the timbre of voices and instument is unnatural...Detailed and thin....Fatiguing to say the least.... Understand me right tough: all the element of these audio systems are vastly superior to mine....BUT they are not rightfully embed at all and that is easy to hear...It seems even some professional dont always know how to embed their system... Give me the system i will make it sing in a room where i will set an acoustical treatment and acoustical controls, and also my own recipe for mechanical and electrical grid controls at very low cost... It is very satisfying to be happy with what we have even after a comparison.... I know that some will accuse me of arrogance and pretense....I hesitate to make this post.... I make it nevermind the critic because we must all learn that it is not money that buy audiophile experience but rightful embeddings controls... Anyway, in the worst case my "illusions" if my experience is an illusion, spare me much money indeed....😷🤓🤗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gueDCNUAapI |
Benjamin would say, "One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced." Very good.... Benjamin knows very well that the participation to the cosmos through our Soul/body was the root of the prophetical corrective action of the art on the society.... This therapeutical sacred fonction was dying with the complete technologisation of the world.... How to spare the function of the artist in the A. I. world? The truth is any technological progress that is too rapid in relation to social evolution and metabolic capacity will de destructive... In particular in our immature social order now on the planet...Because the technological progress will be seize for more power by a small very small minority... Art become a commodity in this world and the artist is only a piece on the vast mechanical social conditioning... The difference between A.I. and human intelligence is that A. I. dominate the universe by transforming it like a material to his own criteria and exigences...A.I. dont understand and cannot nor want to understand the cosmos but transform it for his own sake, like in Star Trek the impossible to stop Borg civilization... Human intelligence is connected to the root of all living intelligence, from bacteria to angelic realms, that make all across the universe only ONE intelligence that try to understand and respect each other without reducing a living consciousness to be a "thing" or a "material" for other work.... Digital is not unhuman tough and vinyl more human...It is music that play the first and last part, and music need sound but is not reducible to sound...Nor to his sound vehicle... Some music created works transport more human and divine content than others....Then it is not so much the format vehicle which is destructive but the orientation of the creativity of the artist and of the society in this future totalitarian technocracy ... Nowadays the artist has always this choice: reconnecting the soul to the cosmos or creating a sterile virtual hedonistic bubble... the artist duty is more to reconnect man to the living cosmos than to only the old tradition... The stake is eternity and no more only the survival of any tradition....It is the last hours, we are all saved together or all lost ... We wait like Benjamin to the messiah but a totally new one and a different one in each of us....In this multiplicity only we will be able to be one.... Too much words.... I sense the despair of some.... 😁 |
The unanswered question remains: What would Walter Benjamin say? He would prophetise that A.I. and cyborg will always prefer vinyl over digital because it is more organic.... But himself being human only, will prefer the commodity and practicality of digital, because he travel a lot ..... 😊 « Do you prefer digital or vinyl ? i prefer to glue my ears on your heart darling, or on the speakers..»-Groucho Marx |
😁😁😁
I understand for sure.... I remind you because you surely has observed it already, that english is by no means my spoken language.... I never speak it, i dont travel and only read.... Then when i explain myself in Shakespeare idiom, the artful tools of rethorical expression, like ellipse, litote, humor, or condensed rethorical statement of any kind are not in my box tools...
Then i apologize completely for my failure and lack of self control also...
My best wishes to you..... |
Yet despite all that you said, I’d only point out there are people here who have tried both formats *in their rooms, keeping variables constant and avoiding the prejudices of magic words and fetishes* -- and yet they still testify to a difference. As much as you want to direct us to the many factors which are in common and to create "peace" between the "camps," there is a difference here which is not borne of obstinacy or anger, but of listening experiences. Personally, I have not had these experiences -- but that’s because I don’t have a turntable now Thanks for your generous and kind words first... I never negate that there can be "ultimately" a winner,vinyl, for some very few people,able to afford the comparison in the same optimal rightfully embed conditions with some masters files and mastervinyls... A trustful et honest audiophile like Mike Lavigne is an example.... He said that vinyl is better and i trust him... My point of view is not about to negate vinyl positive points at all.... But for most of us with ordinary vinyl and files, the difference is not what seems it would been in the Mike Lavigne room or any very high acoustically designed room... In ordinary room there is plenty of people who vouch for cd or digital losless files with reason also... My point is if your digital sound harsh, not organic, with a veil, dont look for a come back to vinyl, change for a better dac and treat and implement some controls on the mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings... When this is done, if there subsist a superiority of a medium against another, it takes exceptional vinyl and master files to hear a clear winner and a room like Mark Lavigne....Otherwise each one has his superiotity and negatives... Then ordinary mortals must embed rightfully their system and vinyl and digital will be relatively on par with each other with their own advantages and inconvenience to pound over but not a complete superiority in the S.Q. .... Thanks for your kindness and i wish you an iron health this year.... 🙃😊 |
mahgister
My "Utter rubbish" comment was for the article, not your response.
Happy holidays :-)
I deeply apologize and wish you the the best from my heart..... |
The fact is NO one knows why hi-res sounds better. NO one knows why vinyl can sound better. The time domain theory is just that -- a theory. Interesting post....The science behind conversion is complex... But when we listen the music in our room, my point is there is many more powerful factors to improve de sound than the switching of digital to vinyl or vice versa...Anyway the 2 have their own limitations and flaws.... Vibrations and resonance controls, decreasing the noise floor not only of the audio system but of our house, the passive materials treatment and active non electronical control of the acoustic of the room, all these are way more powerful change in S.Q. than the comparison between a very good dac and a very good turntable.... But it seems people are fixate on the less important choices that divide us instead of the more important factors that can create a better high fi experience with ANy audio system, digital or vinyl, and that can unite us... A last word: for me the apex of audio experience is natural instrumental timbre perception and imaging... A turntable can make it and a dac can make it.... But the 2 will make it even greater if the mechanical,electrical, and acoustical embeddings dimension of the audio system is treated and controlled.... All the rest is relative to taste or habit at best, or useless at worst.... :) Happy new Year and thanks for your post.... |
As others have said, sound is a physical medium. Hearing is a physical thing. So there is a natural metaphysical symmetry in thinking that a physical phenomenon sounds better in a physical medium. So vinyl (and reels) fit that value system better. A dac is a physical medium like a turntable.... In a digital file booklet you also have photos, musical analysis and more text than behind the cardbooard pocket of a vinyl......Even film sometimes in the files associated with the music...The files booklet can even be printed....Or only read on a "material" computer screen instead of a cardboard... Except then for the " sense of touch" fetichism, digital and vinyl are about sound and music.... Guess where is the sound/music coupled with you Ears/brain? Not in the files nor in the vinyl at all; 😊 the living experience is in the coupling of the speakers/room/brain...The electronic component being a dac or a turntable coupled to amplifier are necessary but the sound phenomena is not there at all...The sound waves dance in the unified room/ ears/brain phenomenon... Change the acoustical settings of your room, and immediately the sound of your digital apparatus, if it was a relatively good one, will become "analog" like.... Ok seriously you say it is the "groove" in the vinyl that are the crux matter about analog, is not it? But Fourier analysis can transform digital in analog and vice versa... That sound too artificial? Relax your ears/brain do the same Fourier conversion.... The problem is bad digital, not digital; and the second problem is the acoustical settings of most living room, with an irregular geometry (many empty corners for example), a complex topology (doors and many windows) and a complex varied acoustical content(furniture, wood,concrete, etc) In a bad room(most audiophile ordinary room are bad, it is easy to see it in the virtual section photos) vinyl will suffer less than digital, it is evident, because of the difficulty to retrieve the refine higher frequencies from the too much reflective materials in a normal living room (glass, concrete, wood) a dac will sound worse... With a simple good dac and a room treatment and controls, there is not much difference between the 2 vinyl or digital... And if there is one you can decrease this difference by controls in the mechanical and electrical embeddings dimensions, not only with the acoustical dimension... It is my experience... Vinyl is good, digital ca be also very good.... It is a free choice really motivated by habits and negligence in acoustical settings of room or motivated by practicality and frugality .... But the most important factors in S.Q. has nothing to do with vinyl/ digital choices, they are the embeddings controls or how do we installed an audio system in a house and room....Vinyl and digital wars are only fetichism and strategic marketting and long habits... That is my experience.... |
Mahgister, you are entitled to think that doing all that stuff to a DAC will make it sound better but that is psychological and solely in your own world. The only way you can make a DAC sound different is by dumping it in the bathtub. However with a turntable all you have to do is increase the VTF a little. There are all sorts of things you can do to a turntable to change its sonic characteristics. Getting a turntable to sing separates the men from the boys. Anybody can get a DAC to play even millercarbon:-))) Any piece of gear is always an ideal GENERIC design with measured and verified theoretical capabilities, but any piece of gear, to produce a sound or to contribute to produce a sound, must be implemented in a SPECIFIC environment, which will be each time different... This is the reason why reviews have only anecdotal meanings... A dac like a turntable will sound differently if the mechanical, electrical, amd acoustical embeddings are controlled OR not... A dac can be isolated mechanically like a turntable, his metal box can be coupled/decoupled in the right way or not, the electric field around the arm of a turntable like the electromagnetic field around the dac can be act upon , and no vinyl on a turntable will be perceived in the same way in different room like any speakers.... You cannot review a dac or a turntable in the same way with the same results in different conditions... When you throw a dac in a bathtub you change his GENERIC capabilities by introducing it in a new SPECIFIC environtment.... This is drastic change.... The modifications of the 3 embeddings controls do the same BUT in a controlled and subtle way and the dac can continuously work...It cannot in a bathtub.... And by the way spare me the "placebo" accusation....😁 You know better....I hope you know better anyway....🤔 The psychological placebo effect dont work in the same way in audio and in the case when you give unbeknown to someone a pill of sugar, his spirit being directly linked to the body the sugar pill can do miracles because the link between brain and body is a complete unity... But in audio cumulative materials modifications in an incremental way with an increase in positive S.Q. for many years, after hundred of experiments with my homemade devices, cannot be reduce to be "placebo" only and mainly, because the link between my brain and the perception of sound is MEDIATED in a complex way by different material working dimensions (mechanical, electrical and acoustical) and is NOT direct link like in the case of the spirit and the body.... Miracles are possible in medecine not so much in audio...Except in the nutcase people ready for asylum , and i hope you will exclude me from this case.... Getting an audio system to sing is what really " separate the man from the boys" by the way, anybody can tweak a turntable even you .... But to embed rightfully and to win on all S.Q. counts the many elements of an audio system, working on the vibrations and resonance problems, and decresing the noise floor of the system and of the house because they are coupled together indeed, and implementing a complete sets of acoustical passive and active (non electronical) controls in the room acoustic, all that for peanuts money,mthis is what i call separate man and from boys.... Anybody with enough money can buy some S.Q. buying good electronical devices, but audio begins after that... Not anybody can with peanuts money changing the three embeddings and create an audiophile experience.... I succeed... Call it placebo if it is your only argument and if this contribute to your peace of mind.... 😊 And i dont doubt that you can tweak your turntable without placebo effect in play....Anybody can do that by the way... But almost all people own an under working audio system, not knowing how to embed it especially at no cost.... I wish you the best and Merry Christmas 😌 |
@mahgister- thank you and a thousand holiday blessings to be bestowed upon you as well.
Time is a construct. Back to the nuclear lab before they know I’m missing. :)
Bill
Take care of the radiation.... Time indeed is a construct of the brain, i think we live on at least 2 levels at the same time: ( past «-now) and( future-» now) the brain filter information from this 2 locations in time creating our freedom answers and questions in the now moment to these 2 almost simultaneous rythmical flows of information... Back to my asylum with my friend Einstein....😁😏 Merry Christmas.... |
lhasaguy thanks for another wise post... I would posit that what we see if fairly comparing systems at a variety of budget constraints is that decent sound can be acquired at a modest cost, then you get into the audiophile marginal cost versus marginal gain debate that will never be resolved for all the known reason. Once you pass the point of five figures in your system, gains at the margin become ever thinner Wise indeed and truthful for me.... Just a remark coming from my own experience with a 500 hundred dollars system... Way more low than 5 figure budget then... My experience is that money generally dont necessarily buy an audiophile experience, rightful embeddings controls almost always did it .... Because there is no reason an amplifier at any price will sound good in a non mechanically embedded audio system, in a high noise floor electrical grid house, and in a badly acoustically designed room.... Merry Christmas to you.... |
I trust you on this.....And it is very interesting to know this experiment of yours bigkidz ... I must be a little deaf tough.... 😊 With my relatively low cost minimalistic NOS dac, Starting Point Systems with an internal battery and very low noise level because of that and his single TDA 1543 chip with almost nothing else to create noise and a very well embedded acoustically, mechanically and electrically audio system, i listen to no detectable digital glare or digital noise....My Sound is holographic, with natural instrumental timbre without the fatiguing highs at all.... And even if my Sansui AU 7700 is S.S. the sound is better than my past tube amplifier....I cannot even listen no more to any of my headphones including 2 stax, 2 different orthodynamic, 2 dynamic one and a hybrid because my speakers are better than any of them now on all count including details.... Then....I must be deaf without knowing it perhaps ?.... Or i am like those who addicted to porn called it love... Because for vinyl afficionados digital is 2 dimension porn compared to the 3-d living love.... I am damned without even knowing it....😮😯😪😶 Like Calvin already demonstrated it before the success of protestant capitalism which was a way for the lucky rich to know that God choose them to be like they are: rich... ( i apologize to digress, i am not only half deaf but a bit nut it seems) And i dont mock you, i take your own experiment seriously but what? What about mine? Food for toughts indeed....I dont eliminate the fact that habit condition us all even me....😁 Merry Christmas to you and thanks for this interesting post....... |
whart
interesting post ... my experience resemble yours... Merry Christmas.... |
Maghister, I’m 7 years behind in understanding, perhaps a few more years in age, wasted not understanding audio to an audiophile stage. Have a good one. 😀
Thanks for your kind words... I wish you the best for this coming year.... |
i was thinking exactly the same 7 years ago...My dac was horrible and i have no clue about the way to embed, mechanically, electrically and acoustically my audio system... The sound was like all this description of digital by vinyl amateur...
But now none of these qualification apply...My lossless files are read by a very good Nos dac and mostly the acoustical setting of my room gives me a natural timbre perception...
Merry christmas to you.... |
Utter rubbish. 😊 « "Utter rubbish" is an argument only if we lack a gun or a brain» - Groucho Marx I dont even know if you speak of my post or about the article... Anyway... Merry Christmas... |
I’ve tried to show that vinyl records and associated equipment offer certain features of appreciation and evaluation that are unavailable in digital formats. Auditory features are warmer, richer, and deeper, and there are also tactile, visual, and epistemic features that expand the artistic platform and enrich the aesthetic experience. There is mainly 2 groups of argument by the author of the article... First: auditory features, warmer,richer, and deeper... That makes no sense, because the primary musical sound phenomenon is not "warm" or "cold" or "clean" it is the accurate timbre instrument rendition and perception...And the acoustical setting of the listener room will way more impact the timbre perception than the vinyl choice versus the digital choice...The perception of depth in sound is also way more increased by acoustical room control than by choosing a vinyl versus a dac.... The writer speak also of the esthetical tactile and esthetical visual aspect of the vinyl object, but it is no more music here, it is fetichism....😊 And for the epistemic feature, if i listen music from my computer files and dac i can access way more visual and written information than the few pages of a booklet...I can activate a silent film akin to the music for example... Etc Only one thing is true the tactile aspect of the object is no more there, but contrary to sex, music dont need to be touch by hand... 😊 This article reflect only the writer taste absolutely nothing else...Except the sociological evident fact that compressed files are not good neither esthetically nor pedagogically ... And he is right about that because younger poor listener choose a digital format that is portable and low cost(phone) for a music that is more commercially produced than really refined... |
It is 100% unarguable that most listeners of digital music use compressed media and often as background. That may well change but for now it remains true.
The paradigm of each reproduction format shapes the aesthetic experience of the music for most who participate in that format. Does anyone here doibt that? Why? Report this
Nobody can contest that.... And nobody can contest the fact that bad digital format mostly in use among young listener create bad habit and dont work very well for a most educated music evolutive perception... When db level and binary rythm count more than timbre perception, there is a problem for sure and it is very easy then to satisfies ourselves with a compressed digital small phone....We dont generally listen Bruckner symphonies with a compressed digital phone... 😊 But the fact that vinyl listeners are generally more musically educated dont means that digital is less able to deliver subtle natural "timbre" perception than vinyl with losless format... Digital is more practical for use not more musically perfect and not less perfect than vinyl.... It is not only the paradigm of the format, analog or digital, that dictate the aesthetic; it is also some particular aesthetical paradigm which can also easily satisfies itself with the more practical compressed digital format...It is a 2-way phenomenon... Being an audiophile i use losless digital never compressed format .... Merry Christmas to you.... |
Most of my jazz and blues groups didn’t produce vinyl for any of their new music.
More than half of my big collection cannot be in vinyl format ... Then if someone listen music not to the sound first, the choice of digital is simple....You are right for sure... I’m willing to bet that more often than not audiophiles that greatly favor records over digital, particularly cds due to their general availability since basically Avalon was released (first cd my dad bought at a shop that used to exist in Evergreen, CO called the Blue Spruce), is their first experiences that got them hooked on building an audio system were likely with LPs. For sure when you have already vinyl collection you stick with your first habit... These 2 posts explain this eternal non sensical debate analog versus digital.... Merry Christmas to the two of you.... P.S. i hope someone will understand my point about the fact that there is no ideal or better alternative in the absolute from between which we must choose, digital or analog...It is an illusion associated with habit or promoted with the alias of "taste".... Because we must choose, first and last, natural instrument "timbre" sound quality and it is a room dependant phenomenon, not a digital or analog dependant phenomenon at all.... And the perception of timbre is not mainly a taste induced phenomenon either.... And timbre is not best perceived in so called " warmer" or "cleaner" system, or in digital or analog system, We cannot reduce "timbre" to some frequencies summation and this phenomenon is ultimately and acoustically room dependent for his adequate rendition and perception...In one word the room contribute more than the engineering design of the analog or the digital system for his ultimate perception.... |
|
I don’t know why analog sounds better, it just does. To begin with in my experience it is more difficult even today to have digital right especially with low cost component, than analog right with a low cost component.... Then.... At low cost level analog will sound better most of the times.... The reason is simple, most low cost dac sound unnatural... My first low cost dacs were so unnatural that i was thinking to kill myself.... 😥😛 When people dont know how to make something sound right they call the electronic component that sound better among others, when compared in the same conditions, their "taste".... But almost any good component, analog or digital, will deliver a good S.Q. if it is rightfully embedded in the first place....After that we can always have our "taste" for one, analog or digital, among the others.... But it is not significative of any truth for most of us...It is only an arbitrary "taste".... The choice of components is subjective then, the way to embed them is objective facts and rules.... At the end there is not ruling "taste" in audio, because when the instrumental timbre rendition is natural, there is no more taste for "warmer" or "cleaner" sound... Timbre is not warm or clean....These adjectives pertain to the analysis of sound not to the perception of musical instrument... Then i want a system able to give me the more natural music timbre, not warmer or cleaner sound, just the more natural timbre...Timbre is not a pure generic sound out of any room.... Timbre perception was and is the key to listening experiments about audio system and his not only speakers dependent but room dependent.... Warmer or cleaner colors are related to only frequencies hues, but musical timbre for his definition ask for 5 characteristics and is then a very complex phenomenon, linked not only to speakers, dac, turntables, or amplifiers choices but mainly to the room acoustic, and to the other 2 embeddings controls : - «Range between tonal and noiselike character
- Spectral envelope
- Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
- Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
- Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration»
Wikipedia |
Vinyl is a tweaker’s adventure. Only speakers offer as much if you care to get involved. But, with vinyl it’s easy. You have cartridges, tonearms, turntables, cables, mats, weights, stands, phono stages, tubes, etc. Good observation.... But the goal is precisely in audio to eliminate the many occasions of disturbance and noise....Digital permit to eliminate some, perhaps more easily indeed... Digital is boring in comparison. What can you do to a DAC? We can do with a dac what we can do with a turntable or with the complete audio system: mechanically optimally isolate them and coupling/ decoupling them, we can lower the noise floor of each audio component and decrease also the noise floor of the electrical grid of the room and the house, and we can maximise the S.Q. with active(electronical or non-electronical one) and passive controls of the acoustic of the room....Dac or turntable, any of the 2 need to be implemented in these 3 dimension or embedded rightfully anyway.... Is it boring? Not at all.... 😊 Analog or digital had, any of them, their specific advantages or inconvenients.... There is no absolute here, because the comparison objectively between the 2 types in the same conditions is almost impossible for most of us, because there is no 2 digital audio system identical and immersed in identical environtment nor 2 analog systems in the same conditions ... Some will say: in my room my turntable is better than my dac.... Ok then, ask yourself: is my dac the best there is and perfectly embedded? Probably not.... Then reaching an absolute conclusion make no sense.... Reverse the argument for those who will claim that their dac is better than any turntable.... The truth is, i will repeat myself, nevermind the components, the most important question is how well are embedded my electronic components in the system, in the house, and in the room? 😎😋 😊😌 As for as sound goes I would say it's 50/50 depending mostly on the mastering. A music lover will take advantage of both. And i concur with your conclusion.... Merry Christmas to you and to all.... 🎄🎈🎀🎁 |
A good turntable is always better than a bad digital....
But a not so good turntable will be beaten by a good digital system...
And if money is not a problem you could argue for the superiority of one or the other endlessly... And many people here do that endlessly... 😁
But for most of us digital rightfully embedded is at least on par with almost all turntable especially if the turntable system is not so well embedded mechanically, electrically, and acoustically...
In this case any good audio system rightfully embedded can beat one that is not, be it a digital one or an analog one....
For sure for a meaningful comparison the 2 system compared must be on comparable engineered design level...
A bravo amplifier at 50 dollars dont compare with a 1000 amplifier.....
In audio never-mind digital or analog, tube or S.S., nevermind the speakers categories, magneplanar, 2way boxes, multiway, electroacousatic, horns, no speakers can beat the room, be it acoustically embedded or not....
My own experience is that audio S.Q. is proportional to the rightfully embeddings controls and treatment in the mechanical, electrical, amd acoustical dimensions way more than solely the choice of an electronic component....
Few people say that clearly in audio forum, the reason is simple, people are way more devoted to the upgrading endless process and way less to the rightfull embeddings conditions, the fact is most people dont have the knowledge and the experience about that and most of the times even not a clue; and the sellers want to sell, whatever their own knowledge is, why stopping the upgrading process for the benefit of an audiophile experience at very low cost ? 😊 That goes without saying...
That is my experience, and i say here what i should have heard 7 years ago when i entered audio forums but never heard it.... Then i figure it out myself, with 2 intense years of continuous listening experiments with homemade created devices mostly....
Dont upgrade before embedding everything right.... Simple....
Analog or digital is only a red herring in the sea of audio forums....Dont go for the bait, think.....
Merry Christmas.... 😌 |
