Can't argue with that at all. I think it is an illusion that is reality. |
Excellent post Mahgister. Recording engineers, musicians and vocalists choose mics like we choose phono cartridges. |
Correct audio2design. Bad analogy dutchydog. Call a fax machine. Listen and you will hear the sound of computers talking. That is what digital sounds like. |
@cd318, It was not a matter of superior sound by expense. The vast market was unwilling to spend the extra money on SACD and DVDA.
Now we have Blu Ray audio.
As you suggest, I will take the music in what ever format it is available in. I do have my preferences, high-res digital first, vinyl second and CAD last. With music before 1985 I try to get final.
|
@wuwulf , To answer your question, going in and out a digital at 24/192 is invisible. But, after my music starts out in the digital domain on my computers hard drive. So, there is only one step for half my collection. All modern music with few exceptions is recorded and processed digitally. Then the question becomes does music that is recorded digitally but provided analog in PVC still sound as good as music that remains digitized until the very end of the chain. I personally think that is a silly argument to have.
The difference in imaging when I bypass the processor is obvious to everybody. The difference in going back and forth between analog and 24/192 is not noticeable by anyone. I would think that answers your question. It is unfortunate that more audiophile will not share in this experience. They are just digital phobic and anything I can say about the subject apparently means nothing. Their loss.
Another interesting subject is that because I know what the sound of a perfectly flat system is I can listen to other systems and know right away where they are off. I know of only one system that was close. In most cases they will be too bright with boosted mid bass and no real low end below 100 Hz.
|
@audio2design, to my knowledge you can not remove distortion with digital processing. You can adjust frequency response and timing (delay) and you can remove some noise. You are quite correct. You have to optimize the rooms acoustics for your speakers, bass acoustics being most important or you will waste hundreds of watts trying to correct it and possibly pin your subs against their bump stops.
Aside from getting you to perfectly flat response and all your speakers time and phase aligned the single most important benefit of processing is in making the in room response of the main speakers perfectly identical. The result in imaging is thrilling. No two speakers are identical and no two positions are acoustically identical. You can easily have 5 dB variations at some frequencies between even the most expensive speakers and I have measured Wilson's and Avalons. Most people do not realize this because they have never measured their systems. They think they can "tune" it by ear? Not possible. Your system can not image at it's best without digital processing. People just stubbornly think they can. They can't
audio2 design, you keep saying I need active loudspeakers. First of all I do not think there are any internally active line source ESLs at this time.
My ESLs are one way. No crossover. My processor handles everything including the crossover, check out my system page. The graphs are there. What is the difference between doing this outboard or doing it inboard? My processor does all the measurements with a calibrated mic and automatically generates filters. |
Wuwolf, all roads lead to Rome.
Most audiophiles do not understand the power of digital processing. You can actually make digital files sound like analog with a little monkeying around. I can make my media room sound like a huge arena or a smaller theater. I can bypass the digital processing with the press of a button. Nobody has ever preferred the system on bypass. I digitize a tube phono stage to take advantage of digital processing. If I take an analog signal and digitize it to 24/192 then bring it back to analog nobody has ever been able to tell the difference on Grado headphones. Michael Fremer also states that analog to 24/192 "is invisible." He routinely records samples to his computer for comparison using the same program I use, Pure Vinyl.
IMHO digital processing will make any system sound better, most of them a lot better. Digital files in this context can easily sound better than vinyl given the right mastering. I am a record collector saying this.
If like chakster you enjoy collecting records but not files that is a respectable personal choice. Arguing about the superiority of one vs the other is rather pointless. There is no accounting for personal taste. |
jollytinker, the math is perfect, it is the implementation that is the problem.
Your M Scaler up sampler especially when used with the Dave comes close to perfect implementation but not quite. Brilliant device. I'm thinking about using one between my computer and my processor.
This argument is over subjective human evaluation of sound. Whales and bottle nose dolphins are much better at this than we are. It is silly to get emotional about this. Get emotional when your kid falls of the bicycle.
Trying to shoot the messenger (audio2design) is rather childish.
Some of us like Vinyl, some of us like Digital, some of us like both. There is no crime here. You like blue and I like green. Are we going to kill each other over this?
The article fails because it is trying to make science out of a subjective opinion and the author has very limited understanding of the problem. |
Not a mystery at all Mahgister. It can all be explained by your neighborhood psychologist and neurologist. Humans are extraordinarily
predictable as is the science of audio reproduction, but psychology is not because of the vast number of variables involved the most important one being parents. |
Oy? Hilde45, you give yourself away.
Happy New Year Pisano and to everyone. |
Not bad audio2design. I doubt it will work. Lets go get a drink:-) |
bukanona, I think that is a given that very little in this life is perfect. The other problem is that "sounds better" is a purely subjective issue with psycho-social ramifications. If you just look at the waveform as it comes out of the microphones or console a digital process up to the vinyl is beyond belief more accurate than an analog one, but this says nothing about "sounding better." "Sounding better" is a whole other issue which is tied to evaluation by humans. Now you get into a whole mess as you see here. |
audio2design, it is like running into a brick wall. I suspect that most of these people have very little experience with digital equipment and obviously have no idea how powerful it is. They will keep coming up with baseless explanations for digital sounding awful or why vinyl "sounds better." I suspect most of their opinions are based on the very early CD players that had bad filters and did sound pretty bad. I do not even read mahgister's posts any more. They make me dizzy.
Folks, if I make a 24/96 recording of any vinyl album and play both the recording and the album back synchronized none of you would ever be able to tell the difference between the two and that is a fact. (it has been done.) I suggest you get some experience. Buy the program Pure Vinyl and download a few hi res digital files. Use Pure Vinyl to record some albums to your computer. Have fun and learn. Notice I have not said a thing about better sound and the capability of your hearing. One format will sound better than another when it comes to a specific album depending entirely on the mastering. But, there are many instances when the digital version sounds definitively better. I wish I could demonstrate this to you online but it is impossible. |
Acmaier, the interaction between instruments is the same with either format and you are right some studio recordings are lifeless but that is the fault of the recording engineer not the format.
Audio2 design is absolutely right. People's concept of digital is purely intuitive and in this case intuition is way out to lunch. Quantization error creates noise 96 dB down at 16/44.1 That is inconsequential and far less noise than the analog format produces not to mention that every step in the analog process adds distortion. This is not true for digital. Once the signal is in numbers it is impervious to distortion until it is returned to analog. Remember what analog cell phones were like? A real mess. Nothing even remotely like todays digital cell phones which are quiet and clear. 99% of modern music is digitized. If I play a vinyl copy of digitized music it will sound like every other vinyl album. I made that mistake once bragging about the recording quality of The Trinity Sessions which turns out to be a digital recording! Great sounding record. I love her rendition of Sweet Jane. This would make an interesting study, why so many of us have this obsession with vinyl. Many of us think it sounds more realistic or enjoyable. I certainly am amazed at how good this ancient technology can sound but digital files can also sound amazing and I do have digital copies of old analog albums that sound better to me than the original vinyl and this is in direct AB comparison. As many of us have mentioned, it depend on how the material was handled. I do not thin there is a generalization you can make as to which format is more preferable that will hold water and I'm not sure why we get into this discussion over and over again. It is not going to change. I will certainly be happy if analog formats survive. I certainly know digital will. |
I must be blessed. I have tried cleaning records every which way and it never makes a spec of difference.
What good is a loaf of bread when it is squished flat. Digital playback is potentially far more accurate in relaying an accurate waveform with far less distortion than any analog path. The important word here is potential.
Most frequently with popular music the dynamic compression is crippling.
But, the naysayers here need to listen to an album remastered for digital in 24/96 or higher. Something like Led Zeppelin One or Leon Russel's blue album.
Nothing is missing in a digital file. You do not jump from one way point to another when you make a trip. You drive from one way point to another.
A digital file is a bunch of way points that tell the DAC where to drive. The DAC is driving through the signal just like your stylus drives through a record. Any error is added as noise. Far less noise than any analog process can come even remotely close to. It is only a matter of how the music is presented. |
cd318 comes closest to capturing my own feelings on the subject. As with all things human subjectivity is colored by the environment, socialization, motivation and training. In many instances something is better because we believe it to be. In many instances what we prefer is significantly inferior by objective means. Certainly there is a large group on either side of this equation. I say they are both right. It is not my place to force my religion on others.
I listen to what I prefer. Everyone should do the same. |
Ihasaguy, love that Bugeye Sprite!
Someone above mentioned that you can go anywhere with a digital signal but you cannot do to much to an analog signal. I would add that you can not do much to an analog signal without adding distortion unless you digitize it.
As far as recordings go, studio recordings always reflect the intension of all those involved in the recording process and is in short an art form. It does not reflect the reality of a band playing on stage. It reflects the reality of a band playing in a studio frequently at different times and locations. I do not try to think of it as a band playing on stage. If you do you will be sorely disappointed. A vocalist can still sound as if they are standing right in front of you just not on a stage in a big hall. This is why some of us love live recordings such as Waiting for Columbus, a wonderful recording wherein you get the feeling of a live band playing on stage in a large concert hall. I have both the mobile fidelity vinyl and high-resolution digital versions of this concert. Because the bass in the mobile fidelity version was boosted this is a case where the high-resolution digital version sounds better. Mobile fidelity did this sort of stuff a lot in the old days.
I think that I am somewhat of a traditional list. I prefer to keep in a log recordings analog and digital recordings digital. So records recorded before 1985 I will usually get the vinyl version if available. Recording is done after 1985 I will look for high resolution downloads. I try to get 24/96 or better. There are some older recordings that were remastered for digital such as led Zeppelin 1. The high resolution version of this recording is far superior to the original analog record. Led Zeppelin 2 was also re mastered but the original analog vinyl still sounds superior. Go figure.
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:-))) |
Silliness. This sort of rumination drives me nuts. Audiophiles love vinyl because it gives them stuff to tinker with, to "improve." 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. Digital is boring in comparison. What can you do to a DAC?
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. Digital has one huge advantage. Once the music is in numbers it is very hard to corrupt. You can perform any number of functions without adding distortion. If I record a vinyl album in 24/192 and play it back synced to the original switching back and forth you would never be able to tell which was the real record. |
