Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"
jollytinker175 posts01-10-2021 9:40am @audio2design:It was a crap article like so many other crap articles by supposed intellectuals not realizing what they don’t know.Look, this is utter nonsense as anyone can see if they feel like reading through the article. It’s also nonsense (but funny) that you can hear my system through my own ears and describe its problems. Anyone who reads the article with any actual experience will quickly realize the author does not have any other than a cursory understanding of the math and little understanding of the technology. It's a puff piece. That the article "impresses" you only substantiates my statement. Throw around credentials (weak at best), avoid any practical discussion (since you have no actual experience), suggest conclusions (without backing it up). It's formulaic. |
| Post removed |
@madavid0 got it spot on with the first post he did as did @millercarbon this is regrettably a vacuous snake oil set of reasons and has no basis at all. Digital is actually wide bandwidth so where they got compression from I do not know. The truth was very eloquently explained by the editor of Stereo magazine at the high end audio show in Windsor a few years ago and he was quoting a recording engineer whose name I have unfortunately lost. Imagine a cartridge in a groove as a pen on a seismograph at the top and bottom of the movement - at always creates a curve over a square shape. He demonstrated to the audience identical recordings in both formats in similar systems ie all Nagra save for the turntable which was an SME- same price. Some liked the vinyl and some the digital. As humans we are organic/analogue - digital is not that. I just accept the advantages of each format although I was in the larger group that preferred vinyl |
On that score @Mahgister links to a much better article than the original one that started the thread. I suppose @Audio2Design didn’t actually read it before he dismissed it. I’m talking about the one in Scientific American. It’s clear, concise, uncontroversial, and contains a key point right at the end: digital uses math to reproduce the signal, while analog doesn’t. I read it completely. Difference between me and you is understood it. Likely understand the math as well as the author, probably way more experience with it, and far far more understanding of the practical aspects of it. It was a crap article like so many other crap articles by supposed intellectuals not realizing what they don’t know. If you understood the math and practical implications you would realize that your beloved "analog" is not remotely the "real" thing and is a far poorer representation of reality than digital. You simply love the high crosstalk (centers image especially in acoustically poor setups), you like the surface noise (gives a sense of space), you like the softened transients (easy old the ears) and perhaps you like all the inaccuracies in your setup that warm the sound or brighten it for older ears. You probably like the higher distortion too which again can create an artificial but false sense of space. Given the typically poor acoustics most "audiophiles" live with I can see the attraction. But ... Some of us choose not to delude ourselves that vinyl or tape is superior for accurate recreation. You may like it. I often do. But I am quite aware of why and it is not remotely because it is realistic or true to the source. It is not. |
| Post removed |
Sorry but he lectures just like you do,I dont lecture people....I will remind you of my posts ... It seems you dont remember... I use digital by the way and favor it...BUT i dont condemn like idiots all those who dont... I dont think that there is an ABSOLUTE frontier that makes digital superior or analog superior... It is all up to the wise choices of electronic components... It is all up to the wise choices of the way each one electronic components is embedded mechanically electrically and acoustically in the Room/house.... THIS IS MY POINT..... Then when you come LECTURING anyone here about your theorem and ACCUSING vinyl people to be a bunch of IGNORANT...Because they prefer "colored" tone to accuracy... I have seen RED....like a bull... I dont like someone accusing anybody to be ignorant if he dont understand Nyquist theorem.... You dont know with who you speak here... I posted then my opinions about the fact that TIMBRE is an acoustical human perceived experience and a musical one which cannot be reduced to NUMBERS...It is the human EARS who perceive,..Science create models of this perception and try to understand it.... Only robotic try to reduce it.... Pure science is NOT robotic....Robotic is part of science not PURE science... Then you rant about my ignorance of the Nyquist Shannon theorem...And suddenly you depart for a beer with Mijostyn... The matter from hot became cold...Then... THEN i put a non polemical article for general reader here by a mathematician from Scientific American that is cool ,simple to read, and you came back from nowhere, after quitting the discussion with myjostyn, who by the way said he will not read my post anymore(very comical gesture Children like) I dont give a dam... In the meantime a vinyl fad post after reading this article and distorting his content, said that it is a bad article, she is incompetent... Because she dont endorse vinyl absolute incontestable superiority for sure😛 Then from nowhere audiodesign come and distorting also the article, accuse a mathematician about his understanding of Fourier series which is elementary Maths by the way, said she is incompetent...and affirm also that the article is bad...Because she dont conclude against turntable lover that digital is absolutely superior 😛 Irony supreme, the vinyl head and the digital head after their distorted reading condemn TOGETHER the mathematician for incompetence... 😎🤪😁 The problem is that Fourier series is chid play for a mathematician...Nyquist theorem also... The irony is also that even if she said in his article the SAME THING that you said for the same reason. the Nyquist theorem: there is no mathematical reason to pretend analog containing more information than digital... Digital she said is able to reproduce any analog set of information in conformity with Nyquist theorem... You distort anyway his standing knowledge and his article to bash me because i used this article ...You lied...You know that she cannot be incompetent in Fourier series analysis...All mathematician knows these things even me...If you dont lied you are stupid...Chose one... The reason for your bashing of the article is not his competence it is the fact that this mathematician woman UNLIKE you dont condemn vinyl people to ignorance and i said the samething for my own reasons in this thread... She knows that in philosophy of science human perception is the last and first station of any measuring apparatus...If someone said the contrary it is called the accuracy fallacy in philosophy of science... And then UNLIKE you she condemn NO ONE to be ignorant, she suspend wisely his judgment...Like a TRUE scientist... This is a wise woman, but you are not wise my friend... By the way giving his opinion like i do his not lecturing people, but accusing an entire group of people to be ignorant is not always wise, especially if it is a group of people liking music with their own experience and ears...And condemning human perception for the sake of some theorem used in a distorted way is not science ... It is ideology or obsession... technological hubris perhaps? It is you that lecture people not me... They dont understand Nyquist Theorem, who give a dam... The ears evaluate musical timbre not robot .... For the time being.... |
Almarg didn't work in the music industry hvymec so perhaps he didn't have the emotional attachment and aversion to all the thick stuff that is spread in audio land that does little to help audiophiles and in many cases sets them back. He obviously had a significant background in electronics, but I have been at this for 3 decades directly in audio both practically and academics. You may find me arrogant but I expect you were no different in your field. P.S. may want to look at other threads too. Funny that me and Mijoystyn are the most "critical" on the vinyl/digital argument, but on a recent turntable thread also the ones with some of the more solid advice on what the issue could be. Heck I even agreed with Miller on another thread :-) ... but in that same thread pointed out that a suggested action won't do what was claimed (physically impossible). Maybe you should have more issue with those that post opinion as fact? |
Just so all of you know.. I held my breath the WHOLE time.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for spoiling the arguments, eh. 🙏 Michélle 🇿🇦 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND Exhaled here.. :-) I thought I was long winded, AND yes I am. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. You must understand that on these forums and on others, nobody has advise me about these embeddings controls, <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that is fine, all that is cool. The cleaning lady/guy has got to get in there, no question in my mind...:-) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When arguments lose touch with reality they always end up far into the deep end. Me 2021. :-( <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll quote Jimmy Hoffa (sr), "YOU wear me out", And "argument" is not a good analogy for down right telling people "you don't know what your talking about" YOU audio2design, keep saying your post are grounded in knowledge, science, and experience. They may well be.. YOU are the only one that cares at this point..Humility AND knowledge go hand in hand. I know when I see the name, there will be a post to contradict whatever was said.. THAT is the truth. There is NO arguement. ONLY ... YOUR idea of what WE need to relearn from you. From day one it has NEVER changed... Sonny wake up... It's worth less in 2021, than in 2020, your losing stock.... It went from "on the radar", for me, to penny stocks and a QUICK sell. We (that's me) are loosing money, with your continued, belittlement of others KNOWLEDGE. Is everybody stupid according to YOU... Shi$ man, You are a BAD TEACHER. If you're not trying to teach what are you trying to do.. INSULT... A + no extra credit for you, you got the highest mark... No one has EVER pissed off mahgister, you did, insult after insult. You ain't Almarg. I was hoping for that.. Such a gentleman.. rare.. He was smart and kind...BUT never told others they were anything but, WELCOME.. try it.. SAVE the back talk Sonny.. wrong guy... We are done after that rant... Arguing with kenjit...pretty much sealed the deal. Icing on the cake mahgister... K is just K.... mahgister needs a cleaning person. LOL BUT loves to share..NOT tell others they are wrong... Just share his wonderful tinkering.. Me I'm gonna take another hit off that joint... Puff Puff pass.. Time to slip the Fadder a fiver.. I need a favor. Lord, MORE patience. amen! Time to feed the chickens.. |
Such a harmeless article and so much dust kicked about... 😏 And yet again - IT ALL DEPENDS - ! Just now playing SANTANA, ABRAXES, on MoFi CD vs MoFi LP and... LP sounds a bit more 'alife' / a bit different, all be it better. The CD here is definately NOT better, special jewel case, gold plated CD back and all. I could mention some of my small collection where clearly the reverse is the case also. Case in point, Abbey Road by the Beatles (I'd mentioned) were the CD, no lift-up special MoFi jewel case, no gold plated CD back, et al, but sounding more dynamic. Eh! MAYBE some well kept older, than my more recent, LP pressing will change this? Well, maybe and than mabe NOT. So call it mastering, call it what ever, - IT DEPENDS - , as I said. So why keep fuzzing about what's better? 🤔 It depends, case by case, as an LP can sound warmer, richer, fuller etc. and yet the CD can STILL sound better, all in all - and as pointed out, the reverse ABSOLUTELY can be the case well. Sorry for spoiling the arguments, eh. 🙏 Michélle 🇿🇦 |
When arguments lose touch with reality they always end up far into the deep end. Me 2021.My friend is it all you have to say after my post? If so this is a pathetic reply sorry... After distorting the fact of the article to assert the supposed incompetence of a mathematician to understand the Nyquist theorm, which she proved she understand, modulo my citation of this same article versus you false rendition of his formulation...( By the way Fourier Theory and Nyquist theorem is simple matter for ANY mathematician) You affirm she only said that: "Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise." But she never said that like it was his thinking at all... But she said this: " because humans only hear sounds within a certain range of frequencies, we can get rid of any other frequencies that may show up in a sound wave’s decomposition and still get back the original sound. So the sampling theorem explains how to use a finite amount of information to store any sound wave. " Which is also the beginning matter of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem itself.... Then you distorted the fact for the sake of your childish dogma in a discussion with me and to win against me, you distorted the content of what she said...... For sure you think i am an idiot unable to reply.... You are not ashamed? Saying that she said that in principle digital is able to recreate analog completely....which is your dogma or absolute belief...But she herself know also better and that the map is not the territory, then assume nothing about those who judge analog superior and dont judge them ignorant like you affirm.... And this is also why you accuse her to be incompetent... Is it not bad faith or perhaps ignorance from your part? I let you chose.... I think that you presume that all people here are unable to understand your argument(theorem) then you go with any bullshit... This is why you are not ashamed...You think no one will be able to understand the points discussed...English is perhaps not my language but i can think.... It seems you are not ashamed anyway... Then you end all your false argument finally with this fish tail remark post about my humoristic way to describe, at the end of my last post, blind believers of all origins, be it techno- fad or religious zealot or analog fad or digital brain fool? I am ashamed for you.... Good night.... |
That’s Ok. It is what it is. Just not particularly useful It is not useful for the debate but it is interesting because she know what the theory of signal is...and she speak humanly about this debate without BIAS.... Mapman you are right then ... It is ONLY intended for the general public not to end the debate... I read her and consider interesting the fact that like me she does not condemn turntable afficionados in the name of "science" nor she proclaim that some science derived from by Nyquist theorem posit an absolute fact: digital is the only way...She only interrogate herself thats all in all modesty, knowing that mathematic so useful it is is not reality... She only relate his human experience vulgarizing elementary fact for the gemeral reader that’ s all... Now the interesting fact here, is that a vinyl dogmatic said few posts above that the article is bad, and now the other digital dogmatic said the same exact thing , the article is bad... What is comical is the 2 dogmatics use the same distorted argument , incompetence, and falsified what she said... « Atheist and hard religious believers are like identical sausage burned on the fire of blind faith»-Anonymus Smith i will translate it for an audio forum: Analog zealot and digital fool are identical janus brothers, a MYSTERY cannot be reduced to subjective impression nor to a sequence of numbers ONLY.... What is the mystery? The distance between numbers and human perceived phenomena is the unfathomable mystery.... |
I had to read the article given the debate about it going on. I found that other than stating the obvious about records being a physical object that one can interact with ( and I would add much better than CDs in that regard which is a big factor) I think the article was a lot of conjecture and opinion and some flawed inferences. Little if anything concrete to back up the claims when it came to the discussion about sound. That’s Ok. It is what it is. Just not particularly useful IMHO. |
Like i said be honest and accuse me of incompetence... I will accept because i am not a scientist even iy you wre stupid i will accept this fact that i am not competent in signal theory or mathematic...But dont distort what she said for your purpose... Annd being incompetent dont make me stupid by the way...i know more mathematic than you do it seems.... And you are incompetent anyway at least in philosophy of science and in elemantary philosophy.... it is as big as the nose of Cleopatra... She is not.... Human perception can never be reduced to measuring apparatus...Nyquist or not... Phenomena are not identical to their map.... Is it not simple? |
But the limitations of math in replicating reality may factor in to the difference in listening experiences reported by so many vinyl lovers.This intelligent woman know that the map is not the territory... Is it difficult to understand? You attibute to her something that describe your attitude....It is yourself reducing human timbre perception to a mathematical theorem taken like an absolute...Acoustic is NOT signal theory.... It is also the fallacy of accuracy, meaning that in no way we can attribute an absolute signification to numbers out of any human experience in the first and last place... Elementary epistemology.... She speak here about the mathematical translation of ANYTHING analog in digital, using Nyquist theorem , that is to say using a FINITE amount of information to store ANY infinite continuous sound wave... This is the same thing that you already said from the beginning, not surprizing because this is linked to the content of the Nyquist theorem, then how can you accuse her of incompetence? because humans only hear sounds within a certain range of frequencies, we can get rid of any other frequencies that may show up in a sound wave’s decomposition and still get back the original sound. So the sampling theorem explains how to use a finite amount of information to store any sound wave. This is what she really said about fourier and Nyquist, and you think that i am stupid or what ? This is the gibberish you attribute to her in place of what she just said in the citation i just use: Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise. You assume she understands Nyquist but I posit she has as best cursory knowledge |
Humans are not reducible to numbers....Or apparatus... No, this is what she says.
And guess what. She is NOT qualified to say that. The limitations of math have nothing to do with the problem. It is purely implementation which she appears quite ingnorant about. She shows virtually no practical knowledge on the subject (not even a good theoretical understanding). When it comes to storing sound as a digital file, however, the limited capacity of computers is a problem. Sound waves contain an infinite number of points. Computers cannot store infinite amounts of information. And in this statement she just shows herself to be yet another academic trying to look smart outside her area of expertise. Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise. You assume she understands Nyquist but I posit she has as best cursory knowledge. It's not standard curriculum for mathematics. Ditto likely ignorant w.r.t Shannon's theorem. You are interpretating what you want to and assigning expertise where no actual evidence of it exists. |
Ok i will be short... Humans are not reducible to numbers....Or apparatus... Perception of timbre is a subjerctive/objective complex problem... Reducing it to Nyquist theorem is ridiculous... She also think so... His article was not INTENDED to be for specialist then repeating that there is no new information there is bad faith... His own human experience is speaking in the article intended for ordinary people and it is interesting and well put... and i cite his article because being a mathematician she knows about Nyquist theorem which only imply elementary mathematic for a mathematician by the way and ordinary people here who dont embark in any boat may be interested to read that.... By the way you quit the last time why are you coming back? To critic for incompetence a general public article? If someone is incompetent it is me by the way, not her.... Then be direct and candide and said so... Do not zig zag and said untruthful thing about someone who is not only competent but humanly modest in an intended GENERAL public article..... I am not fond of distorted argument... |
Magister, Come on bud. There is literally no information in that article. Nothing. Some hand waving with 0 attachment to the real world at all. None. And given just a PhD candidate, not in signal processing, there is more than a small chance that her practical understanding of Nyquist and real world systems is very weak. Right now you just come across as clutching at straws and taking 6-8 paragraphs to do it. Please learn some brevity. Any point you may have is lost in the noise. |
It was a rather weak "paper" not based in any verified reality. There is nothing at all scientific about the paper nor really mathematical for that matter. She is not at all a subject matter expert.Bad faith exist when someone misrepresent the intention of someone else to attack him after this distortion... First -You cannot accuse her, like you blame me of ignorance about the Nyquist Theorem, which is small game mathematically speaking for a mathematician... Second- This CANNOT be a "weak paper" this a general public article... Then faulting her for a piece of vulgarization and anecdotal subjective experience demonstrate your vindicative dogmatism and volontary distortion of objective fact... Third I myself use this article for the general public here, and for his opinion that float none of the 2 boats in war, nor yours (digital) nor the other boat (turntable fanatics). She trust his ears and have some doubt without faulting no one, nor the digital camp nor the turntable one...( She is modest and intelligent) I am in the third boat with her and real science, the human Brain/ ears evaluation of timbre experience cannot be reduced to a theorem of signal theory... She said it but with caution like an interrogation: why if mathematically speaking digital and analog are on par , and why if mathematically digital CAN DO anything that analog can do, why then, so much humans are judging it inferior? My own point which is alluded to in this article, is that from the only accuracy that count, the human ears judgement of accuracy, there remain a debate and this debate pose the question of what is a phenomenon...It is not a measured number, if we said so we destruct science... My other point, which is not alluded to in this article, is about the powerful difference that embeddings controls can have on turntable or dac and then on our judsgment about the experience... I myself use digital, i will repeat myself, but unlike dogmatics of one boat or the other, i refuse to solve this Gordian knot by idiosyncrasic arbitrary decision or by some theorem... I am with those who with reason, like this mathematician, interrogate herself: why if mathematically there is no possible difference, why so many human perceive one? My experience is it is impossible to cut simply that problem assuming only ONE experience, mine or some other experience, nor decide because a theorem of the theory of signals said so... Accuracy is a human experience first, not a microphone experience translated in digital sequences first ... If you dont understand that, you will understand nothing to the universe or about yourself... Sorry for you... I repeat , i am not on the turntable boat, and especially not on your boat especially for the reason(Nyquist theorem) you are there, even if i consider digital on par with analog in my experience for reasons i will not repeat here and anyway reason you will be unable or not interested to understand... By the way last time you depart for a beer with myjostyn leaving ignorant dude like me alone, then why coming back with no new arguments to answer a post that was not directed toward you? You cannot accuse her to not understand Nyquist theorem do you? You can play this game with ordinary people but not with me and certainly not with her.... « Autocritic hability and good faith are the ONLY gist of Intelligence, nothing else is»-Anonymus Smith «But if some Nobel prize have not and never had autocritic capacity or good faith then what about his intelligence?»- Anonymus friend «Guess what?»-Myself |
It was a rather weak "paper" not based in any verified reality. There is nothing at all scientific about the paper nor really mathematical for that matter. She is not at all a subject matter expert. note: no there is is no explanation of the Nyquist theorem there, only allusion, but she know what it is, then his conclusion cannot be attributed to his ignorance of simple maths... 😁 |
I prefer analog vinyl.First anybody can have a personal experience...This woman mathematician is not an expert in music, she like music and gives only his opinion...It is for general reader in a non musical review about elementary fact in analog and digital tech. Second It is not a UNIVERSAL fact that all people has the same opinion than you... This article does a disservice to that preference, as the writer knows little about how the technologies of each format works, and therefore most if not all of his (redundant, I may add) assertions are not grounded in any reality.Here you write without thinking that this article is only an opinion and vulgarisation for general public from someone who KNOWS enough mathematics to at least understand what is digital technology... Then she explain why in PRINCIPLE by Fourier analysis there is not supposed to be a difference in the comparison between digital and analog, BUT it seems anyway that, perhaps she says, there is one difference even if the theory of signals said the contrary...She only wanted to know by herself... It is vulgarisation +anecdotal personal experience like yours or mine...Not more not less... Then your affirmation that "she does a disservice to that preference" (analog vinyl) is wrong...She never pretended to be a pro reviewers in music or an expert in sound...But your affirmation that she knows " little about how the technologies of each format works" is if not plainly wrong at least misleading: all digital technology are based on a sophisticated mathematics and she knows about this mathematics because this level of maths is complex for most people but simple for a professional mathematician... And you add to your distorted interpretation of this simple article :" his assertions are not grounded in any reality" which is saying nothing at all except a bad interpretation of this article and the writer knowledge... It is your opinion of this article that is grounded nowhere except in your dogmatic interpretation of the validity your own experience... She speak with modesty about his own experience in the same way that you speak about your own experience with less modesty tough... 😁 I must add that even if myself i use digital tech with success, i am not, in this war, in the same boat that those who attack vinyl afficionados because of ignorance of Nyquist theorem, neither i am in the boat of those who vouch only for vinyl like a universal evidence... Then this simple experience of someone who know the digital signal theory and vulgarise some of these notions here, BUT conclude that she finally could not take any boat...This article is interesting... Except for dogmatics from the 2 boats that will speak of her as incompetent because she does not chose a boat... I am with her because myself i know that not only the format but many other factors play together and for MOST of us it is IMPOSSIBLE to cut this knot with absolute certitude....Too much variable are implied by the comparison...Not the least one is the subjective link of each one of us with timbre perception...And our own rightful or wrongful embeddings of these 2 format... I myself prefer MY digital embedded dac and my opinion is grounded in MY experience and in MY reality....Nobody can propose this experience of mine or yours to be a UNIVERSAL fact demonstrated once and for all by ..... (write a name). I did not say that your have written a bad post....😊 Happy new Year.... |
A very simple article about the perpetual war between analog/digital written in 2017 for the scientific american from a mathematician but for general public and easy to read with a conclusion that look like mine.... For those who are always in the thread.... 😊 note: no there is is no explanation of the Nyquist theorem there, only allusion, but she know what it is, then his conclusion cannot be attributed to his ignorance of simple maths... 😁 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/which-sounds-better-analog-or-digital-music/ |
Why do yo say you are out? To put the burden of your emotion to someone else back? I dont understand your negative reaction... I was polite, and only arguing my point... And facing the fanatics of digital or analog, i reasonnably argue for the judgement of the human ears evaluating timbre perception in all these different rooms and analog and digital systems... Between digital or vinyl, i refuse to chose in the absolute.... Each one has his own experience of timbre perception and i refuse to declared turntable afficionados a deluded group and i refuse to critic all digital implementation for the sake of some turntable... Is balanced thinking a defect ? Is my not so perfect English a problem? i already apologize for that... My humor is not to the taste of everyone but i make my best... Sulking in a corner is not a mature reaction to arguments... Anyway .... I wish you the best for the year.... |
Sometimes Pandora’s Box is just a large can of worms.Right.... But some constant noise dont change the tune, no more than a false note can modify the melody... Pandora’s box or can of worms....It is up to your free will to choose... The left ears process the duration of tones... Not the changing tones... Then your remark are not surprizing.... It is always the same echoing... 😛 You must use the other ear for balance.... Happy new Years.... |
All beginnings are Pandora’s box and all this almost always end in Sorcerer’s apprentice dance, why? Because all beginning’s manifest themselves as art before becoming a science and at the end, becoming mostly a technology... In the beginning comes the poet, after come the great scientist and at the end the technocrat... Why is this so ? Because the great scientist can think poetically but speak prosaically... The technocrat think and speak a dead prose... This resume the story of science and civilizations... «I deduce that sheeps always speak prose in any language»- Groucho Marx Thanks hilde45,for these marvellous metaphors.... I wish you the best God can create.... Happy New Year....😊 |
embeddings sure are messy... mahgister, I think I’m gonna have to pass on that way of doing things.The most important thing in audio is a dedicated room... Luckily i could afford one... You have seen nothing.... Trust me...I dont have put photos of the last months... You must understand that on these forums and on others, nobody has advise me about these embeddings controls, i had to create them myself systematically in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical dimensions...All people only advise their products of choice, not much anything else...It is interesting to read but of no avail at all to create a top system... Here all people sell something then , literally and figuratively; i know by experience after 2 years of experiments that a more than good audio system is not mainly dependent of the new electronic design progress but for all of us ordinary mortals, and even for those who can afford the costliest system, dependent mostly of the embeddings controls...But who knows really that here? Almost nobody, they all boast for dac or turntable superiority, or amplifier design quality etc... I know what i learned after thousand of hours...Not reading reviews but by listening trials experiments... Buying a new product is available to anyone, but this dont gives us the optimal S.Q. at all... Few people really know that by experience... Then i understand your smile....But for me the goal was not possible by connecting beautiful esthetically new electronic design pieces right of the box.... A dreamer can dream or make his dream true.... I succeed...Even my wife who dont give a dam about audio is amazed by the sound trnsformation of my modest system... For 100 hundred peanut butter jars approximatively, i live with a piano filling my room with perfect tone decays.... Who here can say that? And it is not the dac or the turntable that can do that by themselves in virtue of their reciprocal alleged superiority, it is their rightful embeddings... Happy New year and may God create for you after making you the healthier man and the happier also... In your case, i think God succeed for at least the last part....😊 For the rest, i dont know...But i wish you the best of all worlds... «Dont laugh at the ape, it is your sorrowful brother»-Groucho Marx «Dont bother too much about speakers, the room can swallow any of them»-Anonymus acoustician «The waves are to the sea what the sound is to the room»-Myself «Even in your room the sound speak his own language, you must decipher it. A clue: His accent come from your room»- Myself «Nevermind the digital convertor or the turntable, choose first your ears, second the room»-Myself «The world itself came from a spoken sound, nowadays it is science»- Unknown source «If this world came from a spoken sound, where is the room?»-Harpo Marx « The room is another universe brother»- Groucho Marx |
Look if your going to be mahgister, it has to be for "Peanuts" and what happened to Groucho Marx? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< i take it too personally... 😊😁😊 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I looked at your room. For the first time. PLEASE don't take this the wrong way. I'll keep studying. I'm pretty sure that if my system had to look like that, to sound right. I would have to take out a loan. That is one for the books... I'll donate the first 100.00 for the cleaning person and another 100.00 towards gear... The snakes from the ceiling have got to go, though.. Maybe a priest too..for good measure.. little holy water (sparingly). :-) I though it was a scene out of, Jason and the Argonauts, Xfiles, Fox News and maybe a touch of "The Crystal Cathedral", for good measure. Wow.. I'm pretty sure I'm going the OTHER direction, less is better.. embeddings sure are messy... mahgister, I think I'm gonna have to pass on that way of doing things. That image will NEVER leave my mind.. I use to drop LSD, brother.. the good stuff. LSD 25... Close.. Maybe a little more Technicolor. ;-) Happy New year... Regards |
I didn't read the article, so I can't comment on it. But once upon a time there was really only ONE format, and turntables and cartridges were easy enough to use, adjust, and replace as necessary. Records and record stores were everywhere. So you could listen to them, borrow them, bring them to parties, and everyone could share their favorite tunes with friends and also make new friends. You got to listen to a lot of music that way without owning hundreds (thousands?) of records yourself. The universality and convenience was truly extraordinary. Then new technology came into the picture and long before it was iimproved upon the vinyl records disappeared and made the situation extremely frustrating for those who HAD to have new music but also had to buy new equipment with either few problems or a lot of problems (skipping, distortion, unable to read a disc or unable to read the last song, etc.). Eventually digital got very very good, but not for $200 - what a Garrard turntable with cartridge used to cost. |
I have no preference... I chose digital for his immense practicality... It take me time to make it sound "analog" like....I succeed... I cannot have 10,000 vinyl in my house... 😁 I hate the obligation to change the faces of the vinyl... My last vinyl was popping after 2 listening...I throw it .... I only refuse to assimilate all timbre recognition being the same in all cases and conditions and circonstances, invoking only signals theory.... Timbre naturalness perception is linked to many factors and cannot be reduced to an alleged vinyl or digital superiority... That is my point.... Anyway all the audio chain is a mix of analog and digital elements... No dac beat all turntables, and no turntables beat all dacs in ALL rooms for all ears whatsoever... By the way blind test are limited in what they can prove....Our link to some specific circonstances and environment for the identification of timbre make these test not completely decisive by principle...In my own room and with my system i can detect easily some aspect of sound i will be unable to identify in a new blind test environment...All identification processes are a learning process connected to an environmentally based usual living experience.... Happy new year... |
No, not theoretically, absolutely and by every practical measure including our ears. You are taking preference and substituting it for accuracy, and no you can't make that judgment in absence of knowing that the original sounds like which would be the rarest of cases that people do. On paper yes theoretically...By Fourier transform...But the real event for the ears take place in a concrete recording room and after that in a concrete specific listening room... |
