Hey, I'm actually one of those who is capable of enjoying a moderate degree of surface noise on old records of certain musical genres, but not so much with LP's, more so 45's and 78's. And not just noise from uncleanable dust'n'dirt and years of playing on a cheap old turntables/cartridges either, but from a patina of countless light scratches as well. The robustness of the physically larger grooves of the single formats, combined with the higher velocity and therefore pitch of the groove/surface noise generated by higher rpm playback, can allow for a very evocative atmospheric sound to be created in the ears of some devotees of older genres and records. It's not unlike the desirability of leaving the timeworn finish untouched on a piece of antique wooden furniture. |
Shadorne notes: If Vinyl was so much better than other mediums then can someone expain why it has never been used as the reference storage medium for the audio industry. I mean why did the recording industry use analog master tapes and now digital masters if Vinyl was the ultimate Tsk, tsk, Shadorne. You know why (among other reasons): a) Tape is 1st generation; vinyl comes after. b) Tapes offer much more storage space for music c) Vinyl is hardly "ultimate" -- it's just relatively better. For example, live FM broadcast (good quality) sounds exceptional. For that matter, tapes sound excellent (but can you find pre-recorded R-R tapes?) Nostalgic? Hardly so in very many cases: many audiophiles AND music lovers used to be annoyed at the vagaries of vinyl playback in the old times -- myself included. And many, I'm sure, looked forward to the "new" medium... whether they admit it or not. Looks apart (many TTs look beautiful fm an "engineering aesthetics" point of view), and hobbyism apart, -- you need TWO pick up cartridge life cycles to match the life cycle of ONE laser pick-up if you;re lucky; -- you have to set up the TT (but that's not rocket science) -- you need a good tone-arm: this means inexpensive in the beginning or VERY expensive thereafter (OK, you can buy vintage) -- Worse of all -- as Raul noted recently: you need a phono equaliser. These components are probably the most miserable sounding devices to hit the dealer shelves... It may be masochism or something else, or both. But, really, believe me, this ain't no nostalgia:) |
Its called consistency.. Vinyl in general can perform above many of the digital recorded counterparts.. Although there is great digital too. But for whatever reason analog done right is just flat out impressive, and people recognize it easier than with the same CD they have heard on 20 different systems.
As for accuracy and efficiency digital gets it done, but that does not make it more pleasing or musical.
I mean you could argue exacly the same with Tubes and Solid state.. and many musicians are still not giving up the marshall tube stacks, so what is wrong with the guys making the music? Same thing that is wrong with vinylphiles, its not nostalgia its preference. So you go figure it out, Ipod is not the answer to everything is the moral of the story. |
Albertporter,
Upon reflection do you think that your 'over the top' self defense, even in the face of comments by others which are judgmental of your preferred format, might just generate in others with less experience or security a feeling that you are denegrating their choices.
Your last post, for me at least, raises the issue of some of the same arrogance you decry when you announce how necessary it is (for others) to hear a (perfect) vinyl record to connect emotionally to the music being played.
I think many folks make an emotional connection with the music totally unconnected with the format of delivery. In fact, I will say that if someone cannot connect with music without dependency on the choice of format they have my sympathy!
We should all learn to be more sensitive to the many different approaches and needs of folks involved in this hobby.
Before you fire one back at me, remember that only your friends tell you when you have bad breath. Right now I know that I do! :-) |
Gregm, It may be masochism or something else, or both. But, really, believe me, this ain't no nostalgia:) I think you hit the nail on the head. Nostalgia is for the Vinyl jackets themselves and the length of time they have been owned and when/where they were purchased. Or reminiscing when playing a song (which can be Vinyl, CD, Radio or whatever) If I understood correctly, I think what you are describing is a ritualistic behaviour and aesthetic fascination of the beauty and elegance of TT/Vinyl. An engineering marvel that outwardely manifests its beauty rather than technology deeply burried/hidden on a sliver disc and inside circuit boards and software alogorithms (as in CD & Digital). I can understand that. Music is Art. A beautiful TT is art too. |
Come on, Albert is one of those who listen and he has his opinion. Other's think different or they link it with spending money. When I started in this "Hobby" I had nothing, no records, no CD's. I compared and I decided to go for Vinyl. Those who listen ---> use Vinyl, those who read datas listen ----> to Digits. This has been a fact 15 years ago, it is the same now and it will be the next 15 years. Unfortunately it is true, a good analog System is really expensive, no way out. But the satisfaction is worth it. Since I use my AirLine Arm I have problems to believe what's in the groove. Really amazing.
I own DCS Equipment and I like it, but honestly, the Software is sooooo bad, it is frustrating. For my limited listening time it is a waste. |
Newbee Upon reflection do you think that your 'over the top' self defense, even in the face of comments by others which are judgmental of your preferred format, might just generate in others with less experience or security a feeling that you are denegrating their choices. My response was mostly at Eldartford who has attacked LP format almost since the day he arrived at Audiogon. Forgive me if the constant rubbing against my feelings occasionally cause me to cry out. If I were as persistent at visiting digital forums and criticizing everyone's choice, ragging on the flaws of digital and telling everyone it was the wrong way to listen to music, do you think someone might fly back at me with comments? I think the answer is yes they would. Perhaps I should not defend analog and hide my feelings so those that don't choose it can feel like they have not missed anything. Thomasheisig When you say I own DCS Equipment and I like it, but honestly, the Software is sooooo bad, it is frustrating. For my limited listening time it is a waste. It sounds as if you agree with me that digital is good but not up to the quality of analog. As for comments about music, I own 6K records, some CD's and even a few hundred open reel tapes. I even own an iPod. I am a music lover and will avail myself of music any way I can. Just like dining out, given the choice I will dine at best quality restaurant, (Vinyl) it that's is not available I eat at a midline place (CD). If nothing else is available fast food has to do (iPod). That does not change the fact that each is a different level of quality. Some people only eat fast food and some all the above. Analog is superior on my system and of the tens of dozens of professionals I know in the audio business most prefer analog to digital. That may not make it a truth for everyone but it means I'm not unusual in my belief. |
Those who listen ---> use Vinyl, those who read datas listen ----> to Digits. Just like dining out, given the choice I will dine at best quality restaurant, (Vinyl) it that's is not available I eat at a midline place (CD). If nothing else is available fast food has to do (iPod). Great stuff! The marketing people at Axe Cologne need your talents... I can see the ad in my minds eye.... Computer Nerd with goofy glasses, greasy hair and a pocket full of pens listens to a CD. Cut to -> Slob with iPod surrounded by other slobs eating a mushy fast food burger whilst humming and spitting out bits of half chewed food. Cut to -> Tall, slender, dark, handsome male, adjusting his turntable arm, surrounded by bejewelled babes in sleek evening dresses and high heels, holding album covers... Narrator says ,"For those who know how to listen...." LOL. More seriously; Nick Hornby wrote an amusing book about this male phenomenon (Boys and their toys) called "High Fidellity"...it is an entertaining and an enlightening read (for any male with a passion for audio, you may find something of yourself reflected in its pages, I know I did). |
Good debate but should we all be venting our anger and expending our energy in a CD vs vinyl debate when neither format has a significant future and both have significant flaws. It's time for the analog and digital audiophiles of the world to unite and imagine a better future where we are not the after toughts (no thought?) of the big music companies.
Apple reinvented music distribution in a way that the likes of Sony and the old school CD distributors could not imagine. They dramatically lowered distribution costs. Perhaps this offers some avenue for a high end digital download alternative (at a whopping $5 per song instead of $1). The marginal costs to apple of creating a super high res digital mastering of the original tapes might be minimal and the distribution costs could be identical to low res. This could be a very profitable niche market.
Perhaps we should stop fighting and move on to a better future for true music lovers |
My condolences Albert for the loss of your friend.
I want to point out that as this thread has evolved away from the starting topic, IMO many of the posts have too casually equated analog with the LP record and digital with the Red Book CD. I think disappointment with the Red Book CD gets carried too far as a general blanket condemnation of the potential of digital audio. It's still a young technology by the standards of the LP and its forerunners, but the CD is absolutely ancient by the standards of information technology. Recall the primitive state of the home computer at the time of the CD's introduction, then think about the cost vs. capability of computing power today. Yet the CD ploddingly persists (if no longer predominates in the mass market, where sound quality is the least of consumers' concerns). It's like being confined in 2007 to playing Pong and working in DOS. The theoretical advantages inherent in skipping at least a couple stages of signal transduction on the way from the microphones to the loudspeakers, combined with intrinsic robustness, manipulability, and portability/transmissability as a storage medium, clearly make digital the way of the future, today's audiophile vinyl renaissance notwithstanding. I'll never get rid of my records, but I don't expect them to always be my sonic preference. |
A more accurate advertising scenario is this: Man (of any physical type) holds a deed to swampland in Florida. Face it digitophiles, you've been sold a Bill of Goods, a Dud, a Failure.
While digitization is a great idea for storing information, music is more than just information, and in the conversion of music to digital quanta, the playback gives us just more information: the music has been filtered out, it's gone, in its place dead and sterile information.
Now, this information might sound impressive, might even sound fluid if you throw enough bucks at it, or like the fellow up above inject as many tubes as you can between the source of the information and the speakers, but it never, ever, sounds like music. What digital media does is convey (in the absence of an analog reproduction) the information about a certain artistÂ’s latest creation, and if this information suggests something good, you go and look for it on vinyl. ThatÂ’s what I do, and IÂ’m certain, many others.
So here I have to disagree with Albert, and some others: A lowly Thorens TD-160 is superior to ever digital player of whatever sort ever manufactured, up into the stratosphere of price. That is, if you do indeed have an ear for music, instead of an ear for information. Given this, it is not true that digital is cheaper. A Rega P3 mounted with a Denon DL-103 ($150) into a Denon transformer ($300) will destroy any digital player on the planet, when it comes to making music. A restored idler-wheel drive will do this in spades, AND extract more information than any digital source in existence, again with a humble RB-300/Denon DL-103. There are alternatives, though they are to be discussed in hushed whispers. Perhaps a megabuck digital source will retrieve and deliver more INFORMATION than a P3 (but is not air, resonances, decay, gestalt, and PRaT a form of information?), but the stimulus of emotional and physical responses just ain't there. And since this is the Prime Directive of all audio equipment, then the P3 or Thorens TD-160 is superior to every digital system on the planet. Why? Because music is more than information, and in the process of digitization, something is lost, something NOT lost to either TD-160 or P3, something FUNDAMENTAL: the Music. Its loss is inexcusable in a piece of equipment intended to reproduce music. Like ordering a steak at a fine restaurant, and being served a dish of butter and spices: Sorry, we have no steak, and so offer you the spices, here's your bill. Inexcusable.
Analog, though - and vinyl IS analog - being an analog of the original signal (and hoping the original is of analog origin as well) - PRESERVES the original music by, as one definition (on a computer website) puts it: "Representing data in continuously variable physical quantities, in contrast to the digital representation of data in discrete units (the binary digits 1 and 0). Analog systems handle information which is represented by continuous change and flow, such as voltage or current. Analog devices have dials and sliding mechanisms. Digital information, in contrast, is either on or off. An analog is a representation of a pattern by a similar pattern; for example, an analog clock represents the sun circling around the earth. An analog device converts a pattern such as light, temperature, or sound into an analogous pattern. An example is a video recorder, which converts light and sound patterns into electrical signals with the same patterns. An analog signal such as a sound wave is converted to digital by sampling at regular intervals; the more frequent the samples and the more data recorded, the more closely the digital representation resembles the analog signal. Converting analog signals into digital makes it possible to preserve the data indefinitely and make many copies without deterioration of quality."
Even here, on a computer website, it is admitted digital can only APPROACH the analog signal. It is this Analogy, Analog Representation, which is the key. Break it down into the bits and bytes of digital information storage, and the original signal, which IS analog (soundwaves), is destroyed, the chain is broken.
Why do so many digitophiles feel it necessary to crash the Vinyl Party whenever they can and try to force by various means their point of view on analog-philes? Because they've been sold a Bill of Goods, a Dud, a Bad Idea; they've sunk money into it, they've sunk their egos into it, and they can't admit they've been taken; made a mistake; been had; been duped; fell hook, line and sinker; for a Fraud.
Not all ideas are good ideas, most things the majority believe in or support are in fact bad ideas (take Celine Dion, or "Reality" television for instance). And, unfortunately, many of those who do buy audio equipment are not blessed with a sense of rhythm (admit it, you ALL know people who are either tone-deaf or unable to dance because they are unable to follow a beat), or an ear for music, though it may be politically-correct to pretend we are all equal in our capacity to appreciate music. Should we be taking the impressions of the colour blind in an art gallery as Good Information (or do we pretend there are no colour blind?)? These handicapped (and in a world of MUSIC they ARE handicapped) are impressed and fascinated by sounds, and their contributions muddy the waters for those who are sensitive to musicality, gestalt, rhythm, timing. How can we tell who's who on a print forum, or indeed, even in person? While these musically-deaf folk are the first to cry "subjective!", it is because they cannot understand the objective reality of those who DO indeed hear these qualities, these differences. Since they cannot hear it, it cannot exist, and they are "objective" while those who are sensitive are to be dismissed by making "subjective" statements. It's like Chinese attempting a coversation with Russians, these two don’t speak the same language, though, to continue the “analogy,” they think they do.
Why do Analogophiles not crash Digital Parties and try to force their world-view on them? Because they're happy with their choice, and looking forward to more. As to why vinyl and analog source are not more prevalent, it's because the industry, which is driven by Profit, tried their damnedest to kill off Analog by, for instance, amplifying the noise issue into a Bona Fide neurosis, and by promising Perfect Sound Forever, which digitophiles bought hook, line and sinker. Also, indeed, because socially-dysfunctional computer addicts (the nerds referred to above) were in love with the technology, and just won't let this avenue go and continue to foist it on us. What a crock! And I've heard they are at it again, with the latest digital video systems (how many speakers does it take to make a bad movie good? Answer: 7, and if that doesn't work, let's pump it up to 9) being marketed as, once again, perfect. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
Vinyl, despite a determined effort by the press and industry to kill it off, is making a comeback. THIS is the reality. Why? Because the quality (of musicality) can be heard. It won't die, the Truth will Out, out out damned spot! Those who want quality should go vinyl; the foolish should continue to throw money at the conversion of music into information and stay away from vinyl forums. But they just can't stop picking at the scab.
Stop trying to be “reasonable” by granting this and that advantage to the digitophiles fellow vinyl lovers, drop the pretense of political correctness (which demands, simply because music IS being sold in digital formats, that digital software EXISTS, it MUST be respected as equal), it won’t work, you’re fooling yourselves, trying to fit in, submitting to peer pressure. They won’t be satisfied until vinyl is stamped out once and for all, you’ve eaten your words, conceded defeat (i.e. accepted a Lie).
Tell it like it is, follow your ears, which tell you this: vinyl is THE superior medium today (all forms of analog tape no longer being produced, live broadcasts rare, and soon as well to be digitized if Industry has its way), the ONLY medium (with the odd live broadcast thrown in) which obeys the Prime Directive of a home audio system: Make Music. All this talk of eulogy is, like the “horrendous cost” claims and the noise claims, misleading. Vinyl is growing, analog playback equipment companies multiplying by leaps and bounds, sales of analog equipment and LPs undergoing a Renaissance, reviews of analog equipment growing in number. Rejoice, and let the digitophiles stampede towards the next source of Perfect Sound Forever, with all its attendant required new hardware, and attendant profit for the industry. Me? I’ll continue to revel in the sound of my ca. 1960 Garrard 301 grease-bearing, and my ca. 1970 Lenco L75, and play my used records issued in the ‘50’s, ‘60s’ ‘70, ‘80s into the present. In the absence of the availability a given piece on LP, I'll buy the CD, because I love music. But I'll continue to look for it on LP. Now THAT, my friends, is far closer to Forever than the already outdated various digital formats, and Far Closer to Perfect, as it at least does not violate the Prime Directive of audio equipment for the home: Make Music. |
Johnnantais: You are entertaining and passionate and I enjoy reading your posts. However you are also, please excuse the phrase, a bit full of it, rhetorically speaking. Grandiosity and insinuations that some audiophiles are more equal than others won't sway many.
Anyway, let me cut to the chase: That explication of digital signal theory you quote is simply wrong, even if it repeats a popular miscomprehension, based on faulty inductive reasoning. My advice: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. (Disclaimer: I am about as far from being a computer nerd as can be found on Audiogon.) |
We're all preaching to the converted here!!???......go to some other sites for the majority view that CDs and digital not only sound as well...but BETTER than vinyl??!...and how many reviewers in TAS and Stereophile (including the once venerable HP), are actually LISTENING to and reviewing equipment with CDs??!!
If THEY can't hear the lack of depth, soundstage, transparency and reality of CD compared to vinyl??....what hope is there for the population at large??
And yet for anyone who hears the comparison at my place.....it is astounding to watch their reactions.
Why can't the rest of the world hear the difference??!! |
Who could live without the constant care and cleaning of their plastic discs, then spending stupid amounts of time setting up and checking their rig, tonearm, cartridge, tracking etc., then ensuring that you put the stylus down in the proper position to ensure you don't have another pop from where it lands, then getting up to skip the next crappy song, or turn it over, or remove it for another 12 inch double sided gem that again needs to be cleaned and pampered, then "enjoy" the two good tunes on it.
And of course obcessing about what covers and inserts to put the discs in, and ensuing that the static build up is minimized, etc.
I can - I have a life. This is a hobby. If you're that concerned with the quality of your reproduction go to the symphony, or concert hall or local bar and hear what it's really about. This fawning over vinyl is pathetic. |
I love vinyl too, but at this stage of my life, I just don't have the time that it takes to do all of the preparation it takes to just play and clean an LP on a prolonged consistent basis like I do cd's. I only keep a vinyl playback system around because of all of the LP's that I collected in the 70's and 80's that were not reissued on cd. For that reason I rarely buy new vinyl and for the same reason I am not willing to go to the lengths that it takes to get the absoloute sound out of vinyl. I've cobbled together a decent vinyl playback system and it is very satisfactory to me. I did buy myself a record cleaning machine a couple of months back...man, that was sure an eye-opener. That was the biggest upgrade that I've ever had in a vinyl playback system. Every now and then when I do play an LP and I get a pleasant surprise, I do think how good it may sound if I spent more money. Not now. Today, I prefer cd's for their convenience. They provide me with excellent sound and convenience that I'm content with.
I'm 53 yrs old and I'm retiring in 7 yrs. When I'm retired and have more time. You can bet that I will get me a cost no object kick-ass table, arm and cartridge and partake of some of those pristine sounds that Albert speaks of. I can't wait.
Now if someone could just create a reference quailty 5 disc cd changer...I'd be first in line. |
Johnnantais sez: While digitization is a great idea for storing information, music is more than just information, and in the conversion of music to digital quanta, the playback gives us just more information: the music has been filtered out, it's gone, in its place dead and sterile information. While nicely put, it's not quite correct in the absolute sense: what you are complaining about is the sonic result of cdp which, in turn, relates to the IMPLEMENTATION -- not the possibilities of digital... Already, there is a big difference between 44,1 and 48. And, as noted above, this is antiquated technology by digital standards...Why not play @ 96 or 192? There's nothing wrong with digital -- we just don't have a digital audio product that compares favourably with analogue. IMO, we never will -- home audio is an unimportant market. Take dvd-a & sacd for example: good or not-so-good, whatever, they WERE attempts to introduce a new audio standard... not very successful businesswise. |
Again, posters like Hfeiner remain intent on conflating the notion of all digital audio with the limited medium of the CD. The question at the top was "Can you imagine a world without vinyl?", not "Can you imagine a world with nothing but CDs?" Anyway, it makes perfect sense that reviewers would inlcude listening to CDs in their evaluations, since that's the source most readers will be using.
Gregm: Think beyond the realm of the silver disk, be it CD, DVD or SACD. My hunch is that in several years when prerecorded disks are on the way out, and almost all music (and video) is delivered digitally over the 'Net and connection bandwidth/speed has ceased being a practical limitation, audiophilia may get a welcome kick in the pants from the availability for customers to choose just how high they'd like their rez. |
Hey, we all listen to analog! CD, SACD, DVD, MP3, vinyl,tape, whatever. It has to be analog when it gets to your speakers - we can't hear digital. So it comes down to whether you prefer straight analog, or digital converted to analog. ( Or analog converted to digital and back to analog, for that matter.) Happy listening! |
Johnnantais wrote ... vinyl is making a comeback ...
What planet are you living on? While there are (and always have been) a number of people like us who belive in vinyl as the way to go (given the current alternatives) to suggest this might turn into some popular vinyl revival is ludicrious. The number of new issues on vinyl compared to CD is, has been for years and will continue to be almost unmeasurably small. (not to mention the fact that the quality of new issues compared to the 50's and 60's mostly stinks). Be content with the old vinyl you have and can find but don't nurture any delusions of vinyl suddenly returning to its former glory days.
Pray and agitate instead for the music companies to move beyond either vinyl or redbook CD to a better place which is technically feasible if only the economic rationale presented itself. |
Zaike: audiophilia may get a welcome kick in the pants from the availability for customers to choose just how high they'd like their rez. That's my hope as well -- but the ONLY, tiny, indication of this actually being available one day seems to be the existence of improved live FM broadcast... i.e. the fact that a few people are actually making the effort today to provide "good sound" over the waves... |
Gregm...I agree that a live feed sometimes has a certain quality which I have not heard from any recorded media. However, FM radio has some limitations. As you may know, FM radio consists of two signals, a mono one up to 19KHz and a multiplexed one, (Left minus Right) above 20 KHz. The two signals (mono and demultiplexed L-R) are mixed to get Left and Right.
Have you ever listened to the L-R signal by itself? Even with a strong RF signal the L-R signal is pretty bad, and this gets mixed with the mono signal to get stereo. It's a wonder that it sounds as good as it does. Of course as the RF signal gets weaker the L-R signal goes from bad to awful, and we switch our receivers to mono.
I know that you said "improved" FM. Fat chance. What you will get is digital, and here we go again with the debate!
|
Gregm: I imagine a scenario when super high-speed connection bandwidth and device storage capacity have both become commodities, and we're no longer tied to limiting physical disk formats, then service and content providers will look to higher resolution as a low-cost way to add value in order for them to charge a premium. Kind of like gas stations offering high-octane gas at a higher price for drivers of high-performance cars. You can see this as a logical extension of the HE industry trend right now touting "high def" as a way of generating new revenues. In the future, music and video consumers could be offered the choice of downloading resolution-reduced content at one or two different price tiers (call 'em "regular" and "mid-grade"), or paying more and getting the full native master resolution of digitally-recorded content ("premium" or "ultra"). Compared with today, when iTunes customers are supposed to be happy with resolution that's not even CD-quality, the optional availability of higher than CD-quality resolution every time you choose to download or stream content should have the effect of raising public awareness about the high end (the "high performance cars" of my analogy). I think it's inevitable that the mainstream industry will eventually come around to the profitable possibilities inherent in promoting sound quality rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet, it's just a matter of tech advancement rendering capacity a non-issue from the provider-cost and consumer-convenience standpoints. |
Zaike: content providers will look to higher resolution as a low-cost way to add value in order for them to charge a premium Could you spread the word a bit -- as in whisper into marketers' ears about where their next promotion and performance bonus may come from :) That's probably the only way they'll jump on this bandwagon. Cheers |
What you will get is digital, and here we go again with the debate! Perhaps they'll come up with a way like Arny had done to him in Total Recall....to implant you with sonic mamories? Imagine it...you choose who you could be, say John Atkinson and take a weeks audiophile holiday! |
Shadorne: Think girlfriends/wives of audiophiles get implanted with sonic mammaries? |
Reminds me of that old song, "Mammaries are made of this." Dean Martin's version was my favorite but always wondered how great it would be, performed by Dolly Parton.
Come to think of it, she may have included it in "Dolly Parton's biggesthits" |
|
Eldartford...the Spartan audiophile. Hey, I'm thinking of revamping the L-07 monoblocks w/ some VenHaus caps & Fairchild rectifiers. Should be worthwhile. |
Albertporter...Dolly Parton has very small feet. She explains this by "things don't grow well in the shade".
Psychicanimal...Do it and let us know what happens. I might do mine. |
Zaikesman, Nice Post! You are on to exactly the thing I am thinking about. The production and distribution costs of high end media could become so small relative the premium we are willing to pay for it that it would be commercially viable to create some high end offerings. Your analogies to gas and TV video are right on the mark.
We need to agitate for this rather than expending energy over the debate of CD vs LP |
"Come to think of it, she may have included it in "Dolly Parton's biggesthits"" Albert, I think you put an "h" in that last word which shouldn't have been there... |
vinyl was about .01 percent of all music sales in 2006. in 2005 it was .023 to total....thats not a comeback..... |
although i find myself never failing to read one of these threads the bottom line is an agreement will never be reached as to which is better.i don't own a cd player anymore so that explains my preference but probably will own one again in the future.mac vs pc,deep dish or thin crust,come on guys. |
Macintosh makes a thin crust computer? Man, where have I been to miss that? |
screensaver of a pizza.might stick with a bikini girl. |
Dear friends: I already posted my answer to the thread and some thoughts about.
The thread goes to the " never end " CD vs analog debate about which is better. Thinking on this subject I think that there are some different " areas " where we can analyse which medium is better, example: if we take which medium is more accurate ( I mean which one reproduce with the less deviation what was recording. ) perhaps we could say that the CD is better within its own frequency range, let " see " it:
in the analog sound reproduction the signal " suffer " two heavy degradation first the recording equalization ( RIAA ) and second the inverse equalization in the phonolinepreamp, the bigger problem here is that the inverse equalization that must be a mimic from the original ( the one that was in the recording ) is not really a true mimic: exist deviations where we lost the original recording frequency response, this inaccuracy is one of the imperfection subject in the analog medium.
Other subject is the cartridge frequency response where exist big deviations from the original recording due to the frequency deviations on the cartridge response: the best cartridges have, no better than, +,- 1db 20 to 20Khz in ideal play conditions ( not in our analog rigs ), this goes against the accuracy in the signal reproduction.
Then we have other subjects that preclude accuracy on the analog sound reproduction: record warps, rumble, woow and flutter, step-up transformers, necessity of high gain phonolinepreamps with out noise/distortions, the necessity to make a perfect cartridge set-up: VTA/VTFAS/AZ and the perfect tonearm match, the " sound/noises " that are not on the recording and that the cartridge generate when the stylus touch and " play " in the vynil, the LP suffer a degradation each time we play it, etc, etc.
What happen in the CD/digital medium: well there exist too two process where the signal " suffer " some degradation ( in lesser range than the analog one because is very dificult to " loose " bits with today digital technology ), analog to digital and then digital to analog , of course that the signal has some " problems " between all the process in the digital domain ( like hitter/clocking/etc ) but at the end of the " day " the final signal that we are hearing is more accurate to the original signal than in the analog medium.
Through the digital medium the signal " suffer " less degradation than in an analog medium, inclusive the digital medium does not need a phonolinepreamp because it could be connected directly to the amplifiers: the digital medium is more " clean " than the analog one.
From this point of view IMHO the digital medium is a lot better than the analog one.
Why then many of us preffer the analog over digital? ( other that we own a lot of LP's ), with all the analog imperfections and inaccuracies it has, at least, one advantage: frequency response wider range than the digital one, specially in the high frequency range. Here it is the digital Aquiles heel and here is almost the great differences in what we heard through analog against digital.
The digital promoters choose 16 bits for this medium and this resolution bits along with the 22.05kHz on the frequency response ( where the digital medium has to use filters to cut the high frequency response ) against 50kHz in the analog medium and this fact makes the difference. That's why we hear the silver records agressive, metalic, cold, with out " soul ", etc, etc.
Unfortunatelly the 24/192 digital technology almost disappear because no body ( other that a very small group of people that cares about music and cares about quality sound reproduction: like us. ) cares about quality sound reproduction, but this 24/192 digital technology ( specially the DVDA ) has nothing to envy to the analog one and in some areas surpass with easy the analog medium.
Yes, I think that this technology is superior to the analog one not only like technology it self but in the quality sound reproduction.
With all the inaccuracies that the analog medium has we like it more than the Redbook ( is a lot better in sound reproduction quality. ), as a fact we like the analog beautiful " colorations " and this is all about.
Till we don't have a true commercial 24/192 digital technology the analog one will be the better one in quality sound reproduction and I think that the analog stay here for ever or at least till we own LP's.
What we need is to " push " to the analog manufacturers devices to make a better design efforts to give us a better audio devices performers.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul: until we don't have a true commercial 24/192 digital technology the analog one will be the better one in quality sound reproduction and I think that the analog stay here for ever or at least till we own LP's.
What we need is to " push " to the analog manufacturers devices to make a better design efforts to give us a better audio devices performers. I agree, AND we must push the digital people to make available a digital format that exceeds anything analog offers. I don't know how many times I've responded here at Audiogon with comments that digital could beat analog with technology available today. Problem is, downloading is a billion dollar business and LP and SACD together do not match it as a money maker. We high end lovers are a limited market, and the big guys in the music business follow the money. Analog is right here, right now and it works. Needle in groove has had 130 years to evolve, CD has had just over 20 years. The best digital is still off in the future somewhere. No doubt there are some here at Audiogon that will live to see fabulous quality digital come to pass. However, I want the best sounding music tomorrow night when my group visits and I there are no big changes coming by then. |
Actually Albert, ...Needle in groove has had 130 years to evolve, CD has had just over 20 years Analogue, being what it is (well, "analogous")lends itself to engineering improvement. The dominant digital format is utlimately limited by its s/ware. Ain't much you can do about that even given the time BTW, Raul, 24/192 is still perceptible. But it's neither annoying nor in yr face -- or any in any way grossly obtrusive. However, digital can do even better than that, apparently: I was present at a 1st gen master tape (analogue) copying into digital at a studio. The result, dig. copy vs "master" was exquisite. Rpo soundcards used of course, don't know the bit rates. |
Dear Gregm: You can't go further than 24 bits. The differences could be in how you use this 24 bits technology.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Rauliruegas...I don't know why you CAN'T have more than 24 bits in a word...the missile guidance computer I used to work with used 32 bit words and much of the data and calculations were "double precision" 64 bit words. But as you say, HOW you use the bits is most important. Our music is "fixed point" data. When you play a quiet section of music through 24 bit digital converters you are actually only using perhaps 8 to 10 of the lowest bits. Not that great resolution. I have recently discovered the importance of keeping the analog signal up before the A/D of my Behringer DEQ2496 equalizer, although this requires me to attenuate the output going to my power amps. A better way to use the available bits, whether 16 or 24, would be "floating point". (A few bits are used to indicate the scaling of the remaining bits of data). This format provides the best resolution for signals of all amplitudes. In the DEQ2496 after the A/D input , a 32 bit floating point digital signal processing (DSP) module performs the equalization and other functions, so we know it can be done. Now we need a disc (or other digital media) that employs floating point. |
Thanks, Raul. My post was unclear. |
I thought that, when it comes to digital audio, there's only so much bit-depth, or S/N ratio, that can pertain in any case, due to the limits of both the noise floor of all the analog parts of the record/playback chain (including the listening room), as well as of human hearing. But maybe what Raul was talking about was simply the limits of currently employed standards for mastering gear. |
Zaikesman...There is no rule to the effect that the least significant bit (LSB) be equal to the analog noise level. Usually the LSB is smaller, so that several of the lowest bits toggle on and off due to noise. One might define the noise floor as the voltage corresponding to the bit which never changes unless there is a deliberate signal. The range from zero up to the maximum signal level can be divided up into as many steps as you like (within technology constraints). |
Dear Eldartford: In the digital domain we can work almost at any bit level: 32/64/128/etc/etc, there is nothing that can stop about, the problem is in the analog domain where we have a serious limitations, example: a resolution of true 24 bits needs a dynamic range of 144db and 32bits a dynamic range of 192db: there is no single digital player and analog preamp that could achieve that kind of dynamic range.
The best today preamps ( I don't know any digital player ) has around 125-130db on dynamic range ( btw, the Essential 3150 has 131db. ), this means 20 to 22 bits. So, it is almost imposible to achieve 24 bits on analog: yes, the analog domain is the whole problem, dynamic range and noise.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Agree that it makes sense for the LSB to lie below the noise floor, or for the system S/N ratio to be defined by that noise floor rather than the bit-depth. What I meant to suggest was that beyond a certain point there ceases to be a real world advantage to increased bit-depth in a multi-bit scheme, but please correct me if I'm wrong. |
Three audiophiles agree on something!!! The planets must be aligned. |
130dB dynamic range is more than sufficient for our ears I think, but Eldartford's point about the resolution of low-level signals with fixed vs. floating LSB schemes is interesting, and seems like it could possibly have some bearing on why audiophiles hold reservations about the naturalness of digital sound. Anybody know of any subjective audition testing done in this area? |
Zaikesman...."subjective audition testing done in this area?" That is exactly what I did with my Behringer DEQ2496. I noticed that the input signal level, displayed by a string of LEDs, never got even half way up, meaning that only the lower bits of the A/D were being used. Upon consideration this is not surprising since the DEQ2496 is professional gear, and expects line level signals to be higher than typical consumer electronics. I have introduced attenuation between the output of the DEC2496 and my power amps, and cranked up the preamp gain so that the peak level for a complete CD (detected and loged by the DEC2496) is 6 dB or less below cliping. Now I am utilizing all the bits I paid for. In my subjective opinion, it sounds better. |
Eldartford, I noticed that the input signal level, displayed by a string of LEDs, never got even half way up, meaning that only the lower bits of the A/D were being used.
Now I am utilizing all the bits I paid for. In my subjective opinion, it sounds better. It doesn't really matter according to Nika Aldrich. The dynamic range of playback music is far far less than 16 bits...so it is quite normal you only had half the lights on. Whether it is the top half or the lower half of the lights that light up it should really sound the same. Check out "Digital Audio Explained" by Nika Aldrich...the last chapter has a list of common audio myths. Several of the myths would cause a storm here on audiogon so I won't mention what Nika claims ....but his book is highly respected (by folks like AKM who design/make these DAC/ADC chips) and worth reading, even if you disagree with his conclusions. |
Albert,
I was so sorry to hear you were not feeling well tonight with a stomach virus, and hope you have a speedy recovery. If I recall correctly, there has not been one Tuesday night gathering that you were unable to host through all these years. Am I correct in my memory recollection?
I must tell you that speaking with your son, John, was a privilege. He reminds me so much of you thirty years ago. I could have sworn I had been taken back to 1977 and that was AP on the phone, yet it was your son. It was an honor to speak with such an intelligent and caring human being. I felt an immediate friendship with him, just like I did with you back in 1977.
Please Get Well Soon! See you next week! |
