CD Got Absolutely Crushed By Vinyl

Nor do they theoretically understand that for as long as humans are humans and not enhanced humanoids digital will never sound as good as analogue because there is a conversion and certain things are lost and distorted.

Totally agree

Keep patting yourselves on the back, guys. You are mistaking smugness for smarts.

chakster, I didn't like your jazz funk. Vysotsky is so much better, it's not quite music, though, it's poetry accompanied by intentionally out of tune guitar.

@inna

chakster, you are talking to the wrong crowd, they don’t listen to Vysotsky ...

Haha, i don’t listen to Visotsky, definitely not my type of music.

... and so cannot possibly even comprehend what you are saying.

Interesting, i guess anyone watched movies? This is a prime example of killer 70’s Jazz-Funk for "Serpico" movie with young Al Pacino. And another amazing recording from the 70’s is "3 Days Of the Condor" soundtrack, the original pressing on Capitol is spectacular in terms of fidelity. Make sure to skip youtube ad :) I like this type of music on LPs for home listening.  

Nor do they theoretically understand that for as long as humans are humans and not enhanced humanoids digital will never sound as good as analogue because there is a conversion and certain things are lost and distorted.

Totally agree

fleschler710 posts01-31-2019 1:53amWhat does the sticky tape tabs do to reduce laser light scatter?

>>>>The double sided adhesive holds the active NDM squares to the tray surface. The NDM squares is the active ingredient that absorbs/reduces background scattered laser light. The scattered light fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and the tray is a convenient place to put NDM, you know, being close to where the laser reads the data.

Does the tab have special properties?

>>>>>NDM has special properties inasmuch as it reduces ALL forms of scattered light, not only visible RED but invisible, I.E., infrared and other colors like BLUE. Thus, NDM also works for SACD, DVD, Blu Ray players. Hel-loo!

I use the Walker Talisman to reduce/eliminate static from CDs and LPs. CDs show immediate improvement upon use.

>>>>The Talisman affects the magnetic field, not the static charge.

In a Steve Hoffman forum, Machina Dynamica is ridiculed as hokum. I always thought it was an intellectual tweak parody.

>>>>Hey, what can I say? Machina Dynamica is real as a colonoscopy without anesthesia.

fleschler, the NEW DARK MATTER comes in 10 very thin plastic squares approximately 3/4 inch per side plus double-sided tape for applying the squares to the circular area of the top surface of the tray. The idea is to cover most of the area the CD sits on when you place it on the tray. For some trays the squares can be trimmed to fit. If there is a smaller circular tray for Mini discs NDM can be applied to that area, too. It’s not necessary to completely cover the tray with NDM. 75% - 80% coverage is recommended. Even less will be very audible as I was informed by a customer yesterday. The reason I say NDM is a breakthrough product is it’s the first audio product to absorb ALL scattered laser light, the red portion 25% and the invisible portion 75%. It’s the invisible portion, by far the largest portion, that is the most difficult to eliminate since it’s not amenable to absorption by colors. My previous version of Dark Matter was a spray that absorbed infrared scattered light.

I estimate the effective bandwidth of the 780 nm CD laser to be approx. 650-900 nm. All of which can get into the photodetector. The nominal laser wavelength of 780 nm is in the invisible portion of the light spectrum.

The thin plastic squares are not adhesive themselves. Thus double-sided tape is necessary to attach them to the tray. The smooth UNSTICKY side of NDM is all that’s exposed. It’s not really rocket science. 🚀

The CD does not (rpt not) spin on the CD tray per se. The CD contacts the tray only initially when you place the CD on the tray. There must be a spindle, no?

inna - Well I listen to a significant number of other poets in European languages, including much Yiddish poetry sung by great artists from the 78 rpm to LP era.

The classical instrumentalist and vocal remasterings of about 30,000 78s on my CDs sound better than I could ever achieve on my VPI 19-4/Ultracraft/Grado/Marantz 7 78 rpm front end. Heck, the last great sounding 1927-32 recordings of Eddie Lang on a CD that I heard last week were as good as it gets for those 78s unless one has mint copies and knows what e.q. was used to replicate the sound as intended.

CDs can sound FABULOUS. I know since I have an excellent analog system and a darn good CD player. I 100% disagree.  Digital sound may not be perfect, but it's sufficiently adequate for my day to day listening along with my 78s and LPs.

chakster, you are talking to the wrong crowd, they don't listen to Vysotsky and so cannot possibly even comprehend what you are saying. Nor do they theoretically understand that for as long as humans are humans and not enhanced humanoids digital will never sound as good as analogue because there is a conversion and certain things are lost and distorted. Problem of digital playback mentioned is another point but I consider it almost irrelevant compared to the above.

What does the sticky tape tabs do to reduce laser light scatter?  Does the tab have special properties?  
I use the Walker Talisman to reduce/eliminate static from CDs and LPs.  CDs show immediate improvement upon use.  
In a Steve Hoffman forum, Machina Dynamica is ridiculed as hokum.  I always thought it was an intellectual tweak parody.  

I was upset with ElizabethH highly negative comment on that forum about the Shakti sticks, I assume she is referring to the Hallographs.  The Hallographs are being used by seven of my friends and myself to GREAT advantage.  My speakers lack focus (despite their name).  For me, they focus the soundstage, widen it, enhance the imaging and depth of the soundstage.  They are my no. 1 tweak tied with Stillpoints for vibration control.  After that come Perfect Path Omega E-Mats.  

Okay, I found the site listing for Dark Matter CD liquid treatment and a Dark Matter CD Tray square treatment.  I assume you are referring to the top of the tray treatment then since I thought it was for the treatment per CD.  Can you instruct me as to how and where on the top of the CD tray the squares are to be placed?  There are 10 squares.  What size are they?  If they are too large, they will cover the corners of the tray too much.  Also, if I place them in the CD tray area which holds the CD, the CD will not spin as freely.  https://www.stereophile.com/content/machina-dynamic%E2%80%99s-new-product  This ad states there are 15 squares.  Why the double stick tape if it is to be placed on top of the tray?  80% coverage is indicated as optimal.  Again, how does one cover 80% of the tray with a sticky side up as well and permit the CD to spin freely?

Dark Vader came over tonight; we had dark chicken and listened to some rather light music in the dark. Dark prefers to listen to analog because he says the digital hurts his head. I don't mind. Dark don't matter.

fleschler, I’m pretty sure you misunderstand what New Dark Matter is. NDM goes on the top surface of the player tray, not the CD. That’s why I challenged your player. It’s a one-time treatment for the CD, DVD, SACD, or BLU RAY player. 

Yes chakster, that is how l organise things. Hear the music on digital format, like it, seek out a vinyl. The only problem with that is sometimes you get a whole LP of average music for the sake of one decent song, whereas you can select on the digital files (songs) that you like. Personally l prefer to listen to the LP side by side, thats how the artist intended it.
However l guess thats part of the adverse nature of the analogue man!  

geoffkait  Your CD dark matter is not a CD player but an additive tweak to remove scattered light from the laser.   It could be a phenomenal product but you still need a CD player and your tweak would be expensive for my 7000 CD collection.  I'm just pointing out that great sounding CD players don't have to cost an arm and leg like high end analog.  Also, that this 1998 DVD player modified beats all those "digital sounding" (just not equal to any analog) players I heard/had from the 1980s and early 1990s (my friend and I collected about 3 or 4 dozen players from Sony, Denon, Sharp, Marantz and a dozen other names).  Anyone want an 80's Sony or Sharp?  I'll give them to you if you pay packaging and postage.  

@lalitk

Digital files (low resolution) that are available for free are indeed crap. As you pointed out that people who buys vinyl are more selective in their choices because records are not cheap. To exploit full potential of digital streaming, one must invest in decent streamer/DAC components along with Hi-Fi subscription from Tidal.

Digital available for free not only in mp3 format, but also in loseless format and even in WAV and AIFF if you know where to search for them. This is the reason artists so concern about copyrights, everyone can copy an original CD or whatever digital with a loss of paper cover and plastic holder, but the quality is 1:1 (you do not lose anything).

I bet you anything, most folks who are quick to diss digital over Vinyl have not heard a good digital setup nor have any inclination to explore the potential. For them, the clicks and pops are the only way to enjoy the music 😉

I have DAC connected to my computer and to the headphones, but not to the main system. The reason i am not using digital in the main system is because i have thousands of records to listen to, and digital format is not interesting for me at all. I am only using digital to play files from the internet to buy later on vinyl (if i like the tune).

While audiophiles are talking about quality i can say that no matter how good is your digital file it can not replace a habbit to buy original vinyl, digital is for normal people, vinyl is for collectors (we’re passionate about vinyl media).

I’ve checked extremely expensive digital set up at my friends house, he played some ’50s R’n’B with female vocals, i have many original records from the 50s. The digital is sterile, remastered, too clean and unnatural to my ears compared to the original ’50s analog recordings. Some audiophiles always blame vinyl for background noise and some clicks, i just don’t understand it - this is the nature of vinyl media.

I don’t like digitally remastered music from the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, ’80s... i prefer the original pressing (always) which is sound natural to my ears in my High-End analog set-up, this sound was approved by musicians in the studio when it was recorded and pressed on vinyl back in the day. Remastered music approved by someone who did the job, but not by the artists, most of them are too old today or dead.

Digital is for new music recorded digitally, but i don’t listen to the new music. I love rare records from the ’70s recorded in analog.

Vintage vinyl is the key to pure analog sound (and the mastertapes). 

Ears are simply gain devices. You can actually hear OK without them. Hel-loo! Same thing for satellite dishes, the bigger they are the more gain they provide. It’s not rocket science. 🛰

@ckakster,

Digital files (low resolution) that are available for free are indeed crap. As you pointed out that people who buys vinyl are more selective in their choices because records are not cheap. To exploit full potential of digital streaming, one must invest in decent streamer/DAC components along with Hi-Fi subscription from Tidal.

I bet you anything, most folks who are quick to diss digital over Vinyl have not heard a good digital setup nor have any inclination to explore the potential. For them, the clicks and pops are the only way to enjoy the music 😉

Ive never bought a CD player, very happy with my records which are mostly in great condition. One thing that I noticed years ago when I did do some CD listening on a freinds Rotel system, is that I fell asleep far quicker than I do when listening to LPs. I put it down to the fact that the occasional click or pop on an LP keeps your attention.

Ears; they say your ears never stop growing for as long as you live. Hell, look at Lyndon Johnson. But never mind that. I've noticed that several folks have disputed my assertion that ears are analog. How could they not be analog? Just consider your digital music source; it has something called a digital to analog converter. It's not extra or a frill; it is a necessity.

@sleepwalker65 

The real deejays are people who play music from media at radio stations and live events without scratching and mixing.

No necessary, the skills is another subject, someone can use a microphone between the tracks like the oldschool deejays, someone can make a perfect transition from one record to another, someone can scratch over a certain genre of music (hip-hop for example). This is all depends on the artist aka deejay. There is a big difference between a radio deejays and club deejays. Club deejay should move the crowd and unless the cowd like what he's doing and dance to it everything is ok, this is why the clubs book a deejays and pay them for what they are doing. Everyone can find the right club with the right music/sound and good deejays. Most of the commertial clubs are awful, but there are clubs for music lovers opened by music lovers (most of them are pretty small). This is how it works.  

They aren’t really interested in sound quality as much as getting the music out to the listeners, so in that they are similar.

They are all different, but i'm sure everyone would love to play on perfect sound system, the problem is that the responsibility of the sound system belongs to the club/venue. I have linked some amazing venues with Audiophile Grade sound system in my previous post addressed to you. In the venues like that everything is just like at Audiohile's home, but this is a puplic venues for people who appreciate good mucis and top quality sound.    

 Part of the sub-culture of rap-“dj”s is about modifying the original sound, and while they use SL-1200mk2 turntables most often, they aren’t being used to transcribe anything but time code discs to drive serato-based systems to play out highly compressed semi-original content. 

This is interesting, because the Digital vs. Analog debate is hot not only on audiophiles forum, but also in deejay community. In my opinion digital is a degradation of the art of deejaying. The main part of the DJ culture is crate digging. Deejays discover music, they are looking for vintage records, unknown tracks, they select music by mood, they are actually spend $$$$ on record every month! If they are good in what they are doing, but their fee per hour is high. This is a hard job. 

Then we have digital devices like Serato. In my opinion a deejay should play real vinyl only. But i know serious vinyl collectors (djs) who can't travel abroad with 200-300 LPs, especially if you're on tour for a long time in different countries you can't bring all your records with you in a luggage (you can even lost your luggage after all), so they use their own digital copies from the original vinyl. I can understand that, but this is just usability. For a normal dj gig in their own town everyone can bring a box of vinyl, no problem. 

The whole degradation of DJing began when amateurs became DJs (digital only) in the bars, they do not buy music, they do not have records, some of them are popular for another reason (designers, bloggers whatever). They do not ask for a high fee (and the bar owners are happy about it), some of them have very bad taste in music and their "performance" is just a bunch of random tunes in different genres played from mp3 or whatever they can download for free. They don't care about quality at all, all they need is some attention, free drinks and fun. Some of them can play with Serato, Pioneer CDJ players with flash card (with automatic mix option), but most of them playin with iPhone. 

P.S. Everyone who's buying records is much more accurate in choice of music, because nice records are not cheap, you can not buy everything, no time and money for bad music. But digital crap can be downloaded for FREE in whatever format in gigabytes of files, or can be streamed for free anytime. As i said before Digital has no value. 

Vinyl is a culture, Digital is just everyday life.   

rauliruegas

Dear analog and digital lovers: For we can truly enjoy the MUSIC in any home audio system that room/audio system needs to be a FULL range audio room/ system.

Please remember when you are speaking for yourself, rather than declaring things as objective facts.  I remind you of this, because you don't write like you are aware of how you sound.

Any home system with passive stereo speakers can't honor MUSIC ( with any source alternative. ) with out a dedicated designed amplifier that meets exactly the woofer(s) needs for what was designed and the MUSIC needs to puts IMD and THD at minimum.
Subwoofers more that anything are for stereo systems and as a side " line " need it for home theather. Not the other way around.

Again, speak for yourself.

Any music can be "honored" via appreciation from the listener, however that happens.  Note that probably a majority of musicians...who know a little about how they like their music honored...don't necessarily own the type of system specs you recommend. 

My current system is not full range and I use tube amps, so I presume this likely goes astray of your recommendations.  Yet all of my musician friends love to hear their music on my system.  They come away thrilled.  My brother even brings over different masters of albums he's working on and he loves what he hears.
By all means, talk of your own goals.  But it just looks silly to make proclamations from your own goals as if you were delivering objective prescriptions to be adopted by all music lovers.

@rauliruegas , you are incomprehensible as usual. 

Fleschler, I challenge your cheapo player with my even cheaper player with New Dark Matter. Are you in?

Dear analog and digital lovers: For we can truly enjoy the MUSIC in any home audio system that room/audio system needs to be a FULL range audio room/ system.

That means not only that can goes not only down to 20hz and over 20khz but that in the case of the low bass range any passive speaker designs ( even if by design it shows full range specs: down to 20hz and over 30khz. ) must be mated in true stereo fashion with at least two self powered subwoofers where the main speakers will handled the frequencies from around 80hz and up and the subs 80hz and down .

Any home system with passive stereo speakers can't honor MUSIC ( with any source alternative. ) with out a dedicated designed amplifier that meets exactly the woofer(s) needs for what was designed and the MUSIC needs to puts IMD and THD at minimum. 
Subwoofers more that anything are for stereo systems and as a side " line " need it for home theather. Not the other way around.

@sleepwalker65, I can imagine you already know all those and you already have, don't you?

R.

I mean: at the border between average and top end.
R.

Dear @fleschler : You are rigth and for the ignorance of some gentlemans is totally useless to post to them because no one of them that showed here their very low knowledge levels ( in the OP specific subject. )  are not willing not to learn but just " can't read " .
Seems to me that not even make any single effort to ask their self: why if I am wrong?. No way.

Btw, yesterday I listened some CDs vs the same LPs recordings ( others CDs  has no LP mates. ). One of them was the original soundtrack of the Flashdance movie. I had many many years that I did not lisented it and is a 1981 recording ( btw, great picture. ) and is just stunning and better way better than its LP mate but was not the only that outperformed its LP mates: several makes the same like the Foreigner 4 or The Wall or Gladiator or , or, or, Glory, Blade Runner, The Mission,Geisha, The Day After Tomorrow, or After Hours. Any one of us must listen The Thin Red Line: outstanding

Again, the issue in this thread and almost any thread is the true and real knowledge levels/first hand experiences and skills of each one of us.

In that Universe that I posted 70% of us are in the mediocrity of that Universe and even at lower levels ( 15% ) and at least me already made that long learning trip/tour to stay nearer to that broader/line between the top of the mediocrity to arrive at that very top end where I think only a few ( maybe less than that 15% of the Universe. ). I know at least two gentlemans at the top end and like me a few more that are in the line of the top end. Yes, I'm still learning from every one evrey where.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @tablejockey :  "  It isn't just that the sample rate is too low, ..."

"  The other problem is that with digital recording, aside from the harassment and the complication, there's the problem of not having dedicated buttons, you have to pushing a button and recording a track and pushing another button and recording another track. Looking at the screen, moving your hand, looking at the mouse and watching it. When I'm using the 24 track machine, I never look at it. I actually punch in and out with my foot. I've been doing it for 24 years. "

The real problem there is that that interview came form 2004 !, 14 years ago ! !  ( Boston band Tom leader and recorder. ).

Obviously that he can't knew that today ADC/DAC works at 32/768.

So you link is totally useless for say the least.

R.

I strongly doubt any real deejays use vinyl anymore, they have not for 30 years. rap “dj”s only use one record on each turntable, which is just for time code to drive serato to play out digital rap files.

@sleepwalker65

Real DJs play vinyl (always). What you call "rap dj" is actually a hip-hop djing. Rapper is the one with a microphone, not with a turntable. The music is actually hip-hop. Rap is just a heavy rhymes over a hip-hop beat. Not all the DJs are bad, there are some incredible djs with amazing record collections and immaculate musical taste (jazz, soul, funk, soundtracks of the 60s and 70s on rare original vinyl is a part of the dj culture too). Actually the history of DJing is quite interesting, but people don’t know much about it. This is the best book about history of djing which cover everything from early radio disc-jockeys to a modern day. Personally i don’t like electronic music, but the DJing began way before electronic music was born. So if you will read about Jazz and R’n’B of the 50s, Soul Music of the 60s, Disco of the 70s you will realize what is DJing is all about.

Digital cr*p and electornic music (or heavy rap which you don’t like i believe) is just one side of the DJing in this crazy world nowadays, but as many aspects of the modern life and "show business" this is not the best side of the phenomenon called djing.

For example David Mancuso, the owner of The Loft in NYC, back in the 70s was an audiophile and record collector who became a deejay. This guy played records with Koetsu cartridges on M.Cotter turntables with Klipsch speakers at his private parties at The Loft. Here is a book about it. When we look at the dj booth of the Studio 54 in the 70s we will see Thorens turntables. Guys at Paradase Garage in the late 70s were pretty serious about sound system, i can see Thorens turntables with the Black Widow tonearms and Stanton cartridges on the pictures from that club. It’s a part of the history of djing.

BUT You can see what’s going on in The Spiritland in London today, i think you will be surprised about sound system made for djs/collectors at this venue.

You can also check Potato Head in Hong Kong to see how good could be the place where djs/collectors playin their music. I think it’s pretty impressive.

You see, not all the djs/collectors are "rap djs and clowns" as you call them. Same about audiophiles, some of them listening to absolutely horrible pop music on the most expensive systems. Some of them even prefer a CDs or digital copy to an original vinyl.

A $50 Pioneer DV-05 modified with six capacitors and a higher end A/C cable will beat your Technics turntable.  Just ask Oregonpapa.  My friend modifies a 21 year old DVD player with dual lasers with just some cap to improve the power supply and some other caps (about $110 in parts).  Rivals my EAR Acute which cost $6000.  I also have a $22K analog front end.  It sounds great as well.  Sure, I hated CDs until the mid-90s due to either bad CD mastering (Japan could really do great jazz CD mastering in the mid-80s even) and generally bad CD players.  I've heard many $1000-$3000 CD players that sound very musical and enjoyable, unlike the 80s and most 90s players.

ruegas-the link is simply provided for added enlightenment. 

Direct your know it all wisdom elsewhere. 

  @tablejockey  :...........................  Hmmm, in all recording studios somewhere in the process ( as explain Boston. ) appears digital.

Hmmm....

R.

Dear @prof :  First than all I need to share with the Agon moderators what's means the word: ignorance, to avoid removes posts where that word is used by any one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

Now, you had this " battle " losted from the begining of the thread when the OP was and is not willing not to learn but even gives no single true fact where his thread statements are founded.

Ignorance is the " mother " of all wars and here we have several gentlemans with extremely low knowledge levels on many audio/MUSIC citical subjects and no one of them posted ( till today ) any single fact that could proves what they posted. Only subjective bla, bla, bla,etc with out true and serious foundations.

As I posted the issue here is not digital vs analog ( or any other discussions as: tube vs SS electronics or MM vs LOMC cartridges, etc, etc. ) but a really critical fact of so lower knowledge levels and it's really disappointed that in an analog forum we live that way. Yes, many gentlemans in that low end 15% and 70% average/mediocrity of the universe I pointed out before.

This is for the Agon moderator gentlemans to avoid removes posts for any one uses the word mediocrity:

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mediocrity 

here a confirmation:


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mediocrity

average=mediocrity.  ( 3 )

Btw, we listen and perceive " sound " not only what pick up by the ears but what's pick up by the whole body: skin, hair, bones and everything through the all body that's full of individual ( trillions. ) of nervous terminations ( thousands of them by mm2. ) that works as zeros and ones, are not continuous. We are a digital very very old " technology " that did not started with digital audio but millions of years when appeared the human been on ou planet named earth.

R.

Dear @bac2vinyl  :  " BS statement..."

Why is that, can you explain which is your foundation for your statement?

Because what I posted is not my statement but what you and every single human been has in part of its whole " body ". That statement comes from scientific " medical " proved explanations, not a mere " theory " but rpoved facts.

Where are your facts for your statement? did you already knew what I posted or is the very first time you read about that real facts?

Yes, your first time.

R.

Here is some discussion   on digital recording vs. tape from someone who DOES know what he's talking about.

I've been a  Boston fan since their debut on FM radio in 1976.
Tom Scholz is an M.I.T. guy and a hardcore analog devotee.

Interesting analog stuff:

http://www.thirdstage.ca/boston/articles/interviews/382-classic-sound-of-boston-is-still-tom-scholz-... 

Note the last paragraph on double tracking- recording an analog vocal signal to computer.

Hmmm....
 

@prof 

Talk of preferences will bring in all sorts of differing opinions, which is fine, but I was responding to the promulgation of incorrect technical claims. 

You are wrong if you claim that digital reproduces the original analog with 100% accuracy in 100% completeness is every time. 

@sleepwalker65

You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right?

Actually, in practice, it does capture the entire waveform. It simply does it differently than analog.

It’s like saying "You know a FLAC file doesn’t capture the entire musical file, right?"

Sure, it’s true a FLAC file is "physically different" from the original file, at about 1/2 the size. But in the sense that matters for the purpose - capturing and transmitting the *same information* - it DOES capture all the relevant information.

Essentially the same premise holds for digital recording. Look at the links I already provided.

The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”

In the context of the issue you are responding to, that’s an awkward way to put it, and blurs the issues being discussed.

We have to delineate between someone’s subjective perception of what he hears and likes, vs coming up with technical explanations.


As we’ve seen, some audiophiles who prefer analog over digital, in trying to justify or explain this, adopt incorrect technical ideas, such as the claim that digital can not or does not recreate the original wave form and analog does. That’s just wrong.

Talk of preferences will bring in all sorts of differing opinions, which is fine, but I was responding to the promulgation of incorrect technical claims.

@prof 

(And if that is a refrain of the tired old "analog captures the sound continuously, digital chops it up and misses parts" then that’s just a myth and a misunderstanding).

You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right? It’s called “sampling” for a reason, that it takes a representative sample of the original analog signal, and then on playback, it reconstructs a likeness of the original analog waveform, using the recorded samples, and synthesizing the information between the samples. 

The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”

For some people, the answer is “yes, and I don’t need to worry about the process” for other people the answer is “yes, and I believe the process is sufficiently capable of reproducing sound quality within the range of tolerances that my ears need”. For still other people, the answer is  “no, because I dislike the concept of digitizing an analog signal, no matter how convincing the playback result is”. Finally, there are some who say “I just can’t accept that the sampling process is faithful enough to produce playback that is perfectly the same as the original analog source, and they are therefore predisposed to not want to be satisfied by digital. 

There are probably as many perspectives as there are hifi enthusiasts. All that matters is that each individual has the freedom to pursue the medium that suits their predisposition. 

For the record, my predisposition is that digital has a specific time and place, where I do non-critical listening. Those digital formats include CD, satellite radio, podcasts and streaming. One day, I hope to add 4xDSD to that format one day, for archiving my extensive vinyl collection. After I’ve experienced 4xDSD in my application, I’ll evaluate it and I hope, it will fit the bill for my expectations in critical listening. 

Such a BS statement! Keep telling yourself that….

Dear @bsmg:  """ ears are analog. " Whom told you that. Things are that we all have in our brain/ears an ADC. In reality our ears are digital:

"""  The Inner ear:

By now, the audio signal has reached the inner ear, and that means the cochlea. This snail‑shaped organ is filled with liquid. Logically enough, it must be waterproof, in order to prevent any fluid leaking. This explains the purpose of the round window, a small, elastic membrane on the surface of the cochlea. Its purpose is to allow movement of the fluid inside the cochlea. Liquids are incompressible, and without this membrane, the fluid enclosed inside the cochlea would completely block the ossicle movements. Indeed, stiffening of the oval window can lead to hearing losses of about 60dB.

Inside the cochlean we find the tectorial membrane, which moves along with the pressure variations of the cochlear fluid. As shown in Figure 3, above, this membrane is in contact with the cilia on the top of the hair cells. There are two kinds of hair cells. The outer hair cells are the actual receptors. When the tectorial membrane moves, so does the hair on the the outer cells. This movement is then encoded into electrical digital signals and goes to the brain through the cochlear nerve. The inner cells have a different role: when the audio signal gets louder, they stick themselves to the tectorial membrane in order to limit its movements, playing the role of another dynamic compressor.Figure 3: Inside the cochlea.   """

This is not about analog vs digital but about each one knowledge levels.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R. 

bsmg,  No, it's not all about me.  I learned long ago that the world couldn't care less about me.  Well it could, but we're talking about micro particles  of caring, for all practical purposes it couldn't care less.

pigdog,  Yes.  In your home what matters is what you like.  Same for bsmg.  If you enjoy analog and dislike digital, then enjoy analog as much as you can and keep digital out.  Don't even let it be mentioned.

However, when we get out into the wider world, you will come across people who have decided that digital sounds better or works better for them for whatever reason.  These people are not idiots or enemies, they are just people who listen to a different audio format.  

There's just something about human nature that makes us want to choose up sides and fight, though.  Maybe it's our tribal origins.  

There are analog systems that sound better than a lot of digital systems and digital systems that sound better than a lot of analog systems.  Many people enjoy listening to both analog and digital. There's no right or wrong, only personal preference or circumstance.  

bsmg said "it will reward you in your own mind eventually". At my house that is the mind that counts.

tomcy, you are absolutely right; how could I be so blind.....thinking it "....is not all about you" when, in fact, tomcy, it's all about YOU. And thanks for your psychoanalysis. I'll have four digital chickens and an analog Coke.

Whoops.  I meant to say analog music REproduction.

bsmg, no one wants you to forsake your analog music production. Can you grasp that concept? If yes, good.  

Next concept.  The world  is not all about you.  I'm guessing you'll have more trouble with that one.

bsmg,
Keep in mind:  I'm a huge fan of vinyl!

I think my analogy of the digital generated voice versus the recorded human voice stands on its merits.

I've been recording the human voice (and countless other sounds) on analog and then digital recorders for many decades.   Digital does a superb job with voices or most other sounds.

But if you’ve been acclimated to the sound of vinyl and then have the chance to be exposed to digital, I think most of us old folks will stick with vinyl.

I've followed the vinyl revival very closely and have monitored a great many articles, comments sections and on-line discussions, and I see quite a lot of evidence for the opposite:  I've seen so many older people who grew up listening to vinyl express bafflement at the resurgence.  Comments like "I don't get why ANYONE would want to go back to vinyl.  I grew up with it; it was a pain in the butt and didn't sound as good as CD!"

My father-in-law is pretty typical.  He was an audiophile and lover of classical music.  Had a great turntable, cartridge, speakers.  When CD came along he couldn't dump his records fast enough.  For him to finally hear all the subtleties in orchestras without having to listen through background hiss, or any pops or ticks at all, and to hear perfectly even pitch, was a godsend.    Tons of people felt the same. 


I also remember at first thinking digital sounded incredible in one sense, a bit too sterile in another.  But as more and more CDs became available in the 80's in to the 90's, I couldn't wait to re-buy tons of music on the new format for the SOUND because it was so pure, clean, detailed and dynamic.   I'm 55, grew up with vinyl, so it's not like when CDs came along I wasn't completely familiar with the sound of vinyl.  Most older audiophiles (and of course there are many outside this forum in the world) moved on to digital and remain happy there.

I've become enthusiastic about vinyl again myself, loving the sound and physicality.   But I still hear virtues good digital has over vinyl.  Both are great.

Interesting articles, professor. I can follow the writer’s reasoning but none of it will convince me to forsake analog music reproduction. I am perhaps remiss in my simplistic comparisons between digital and analog; I admit to not being an expert in digital sound reproduction. I am in my mid 60’s and grew up with records. I remember when cd first came out; it made mediocre stereo systems sound "better" and it became a big hit just because of that....and the fact it was more convenient. But if you’ve been acclimated to the sound of vinyl and then have the chance to be exposed to digital, I think most of us old folks will stick with vinyl. I think my analogy of the digital generated voice versus the recorded human voice stands on its merits. I wish there was digital food and digital eyeglasses that we could compare with the analog versions but what’s the point? I can see pretty well and I’m not particularly hungry.

bsmg,

I know exactly how digital works.

No, you very clearly do not, as you continue to repeat the oldest myth in the book.

For goodness sake, learn something about it instead of repeating misinformation.


Here's an easy explanation:

http://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/
A bit more detailed:

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/exploring-digital-audio-myths-and-reality-part-1

But probably best and easiest, a video made for folks just like you to demonstrate why it's a myth:


Google this video:

D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org)

You’re wrong ;ears are analog. Can you not hear the difference between a digitally generated voice and a recording of a human voice? And don't give me any of that recording or playback excuse; the difference is apparent in virtually any perception, 

Your ears are not analog or digital. But your brain is quantum mechanical.

Yes, you’re confused. Digital is a near perfect facsimile of the original waveform. It is not chopping up the sound, as you say. The problem with digital is not (rpt not) the recording or mastering for CDs. The real problem is the *playback machine*. If that problem is removed, voila! Perfect sound! 🤗