I went from digital-only to analog-only about 4 years ago. It started off when I bought a relatively inexpensive analog rig to see what the hubbub was about. As time progressed I found myself listening more and more to vinyl up to the stage where I just never put the CD on anymore.
I cannot really explain what it is about vinyl and to be honest, I probably wouldnt be able tell the difference in a blind test. What I can say is that over the past three or so years I am spending more time listening than I ever have, so there must be something to it.
As far as vinyl (and tubes) being more 'laid back', I respectfully think you are quite wrong. My analog/tube rig has been described as 'startling' by more than a few digital/transistor owners.
And yes, I would recommend you try out the scoutmaster. You may just find you like it more than you imagined you would.
Regards
Paul |
its scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it.
Really? By whom?
I have listened to many an opera, recitals and live jazz/rock performances. Never had anybody walk off stage to sing/play an instrument behind me.
Seen Stars Wars and that had sound emanating from all over the theatre. Very impressive if you actually want Star Wars. Me, Id rather have Stravinsky.
Regards
Paul |
Hey Nsgarch, it seems we both need to learn a lot about audio. Where did you get that silly notion that sound reflection and refraction should occur naturally when you can have it done artificially? ;-)
Good thing we both spell correctly, otherwise we would really have looked like idiots.
Regards
Paul |
LOL. Tsk Tsk Msgarch, and there you were posting like you actually knew what you were talking about ;-)
Look on the bright side, youre 3/4 way there, I still need 10 years! Man I doubt I can handle the agony of listening to vinyl for another ten years. Im going rush off to Best Buy and experience the realism of surround sound today
|
Every man believes he's born with all the audio knowledge he will ever need.
LOL, you dont say? |
"The effects of the surround are directly related to the quality of sound, ie much better for digital sources in all areas."
LOL, yep we gathered you thought that. |
"They all seem somewhat enthusiastic"
Some more so than others :-)
Do yourself a favor and do not skimp on the phono stage. That can make or break a analogue front-end.
Regards
Paul |
Why would anyone even consider the switch, nevertheless post the question, if analog is so superior to digital?
Ignorance
|
'Does any digital step in the recording process ruin music forever?'
Yes
'What about digitally recorded music that has been mastered to Analog (Vinyl) - is this better than straight CD?'
No, they are worse than CD. You actually get the worst of both worlds.
'due to the inaccuracies in the mechanical cutting, presssing and cartridge needle pick up process.'
With a reasonable setup the 'inaccuracies' (to coin your phrase) is smaller than redbook anologue to digital and subsequent digital to analogue conversion. |
Shardorne.
I dont dislike digital, I just happen to prefer analogue audio to digital audio.
I find your analogy of the carburetor and prediction of impending shortage of vinyl somewhat misplaced and unsubstatiated Vinyl has never been as available as it is now, and the turntables/arms/cartridges/phono amps available today are better than anything before.
I suspect you are probably scratching your head as to why vacuum tube arent extinct yet.
Regards
Paul |
recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's
Compressed music is my pet peeve. I simply cannot listen to any music if it has been compressed. Sadly, most of the rock and roll/pop genre is compressed. Damn shame I think. |
I am somewhat perturbed as to why folks such Edwards and Wallace continue posting on the analogue forum.
Obviously they really like their own opinions (that is quite evident) and I dont think there is anything wrong with liking your own opinion. But surely they cannot be so naive to think that others on this forum place quite the same value on their opinions as they do? |
Ditto, good one Raul. I agree 100% with your assesments
Audiopheil, wouldn't the term 'Fuhrer' be more apt? ;-)
Regards
Paul |
VHS versus DVD.
Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection.
Film versus digital camera
Letter versus an email
Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD
(not worth repeating more of this BS)
I thought you were a cut above messrs. Edwards and Wallace ... well, not the first time I was wrong. Yep, a letter being inferior to a email is definitive proof analogue is inferior to digital. I mean, it is not that I am the type imbecile and actualy listen to both mediums and decide which I prefer. Rather I look at letters ...
BTW, never seen a LCD Rolex ... and you sound somewhat uninformed if you think digital camera are superior to film cameras. Go speak to a professional photographer (youre obviously quite ignorant). And while your eat it, go speak to a professional musician and ask him whether they prefer vacuum tube or transistor guitar amps ...
Oh yeah, for security purposes letters are superior to email. Email is not secure and may legally be read by any third party ... letters are protected by law. Just go ask Foley how risky email is. |
Nor directed at your record play[i]ng types.
Clearly you carry some resentment to folks who listen to vinyl LPs. I can only surmise your resentment extends to everybody that do not embrace your obviously-flawed theories on sound reproduction, which incidently, is probably the majority of posters on this board.
Which begs the question, why frequent an analogue forum? I cannot for a second think you actually believe we take your theories seriously. Nobody can be that naive ... |
scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it
Proven to do what? Reproducing a mono source?
Harvard University School of med[e]cine (early 50's)NEJM
Bell Labs
MIT
USC
repeating Harvards study---THX
URL? I suppose your facts are published on the web? I would like to see where the say surround sound is the most accurate way to reproduce a recital.
counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers
Phantom speakers? What is a phantom speaker?
draw a circle then draw a line dividing the circle in half, if the circle represents the "echo" effect on a drumstick strike your stereo system can only recreate half of the circle the rest of the circle collapses into noise
So listening to a live recital, the piano can only create half a circle and the rest collapses into noise? Or by your definition, only a quarter circle, since a recital is mono. Will 4 Pianos will then have no noise, as it creates the full circle?
LOL, I have just collapsed into laughter ...
To[o] me two channel is a joke, fact.
Yep, to me surround is a joke, fact.
Regards
Paul |
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion"
How bizarre. It is unfortunate that folk's appreciation for music is subjective?
Clearly you want us to like digital, but sadly I don't. I sincerely apologize. I strongly suspect my preference for analogue is because I attend recitals very frequently, and since I am intimately familiar with natural music, I want my system to match said music in the most accurate way possible.
I guess had I no reference to what natural live music sounds like, I would have been a happy clam with a surround setup ... Man, I am really losing out due to the fact that familiarizing myself with real music.
Regards
Paul |
as we have already discussed my two-channel system is at least equal to your system.
Sure Eddie. Pray tell the good folks on the board just what system do I have that your two channel can match? Of course you know what system I have, as you wouldnt blatantly make such a statement without knowing the facts would you? I mean, you only make statement like these when you know the facts, right?
I have owned great LP playback systems and still do, so I know what LP's can do
ATC Anniverary 50
ATC Concept 4 subwoofer
Lake Contour crossover
ATC SCA2 or Motif MC7 with black gate ps upgrade and modified input impedance circuit
EAR834P resistors trimmed to match tubes .1%
Roksan Xerxes X, with Benz Micro M2
Custom made cables
Cartridge aligned with oscill[a]scope
Sorry Eddie, from what you describe you have little to no idea of what analogue is capable of, but at least I now understand the source of your confusion.
Regards
Paul |
BUT any room noise and reflected sound arriving back at the microphone out of phase will be compressed into the stereo soundfield (effecting its spectral balance) as noise when played back in (unprocessed) two Channel.
Economical with the truth arent you Eddie?
1. The very same signals you refer to is present in all recordings, mono, stereo or surround. Multiple pickups in recording simply exacerbates the problem (And no, reflected signal the cannot be mixed away as you seem to elude to - the same way sibilance cannot be removed without harming the original signal)
2. Out of phase signals are not necessarily noise, they occur naturally and nobody on this planet has ever heard sound without some out of phase signals and harmonics mixed in. If fact, sound would be unpalatable without said signals
3. Reflection, reverberation and refraction occur at both time of recording AND reproduction i.e. artificially creating a Hall Effect does not prevent the refraction occurring naturally to your listening room - at the very best you can try and drown out naturally occurring reflection with an overly loud out of phase signal to create the effect. Sorry lad, my ears are not fooled by that.
4. Signals more than .4 sec out of phase is perceived as an echo. Shorter than that, they can be quite pleasing to the ear, and can add a richness to the fundamental. Since sound travels at 1130 feet per second, my room physical dimensions and absorption levels prevent harmful reverberation very well.
Pauly, what i'm talking about is not something you're going to "get" intuitively
That is quite obvious ... what is also patently obvious is that you have little familiarity with live music.
The information is not on the web
Why am I not surprised by this admission? Of course it isnt, because your interpretation of said document is more than likely patently unique.
Tell me if that is what needs to be done to two channel audio to get it to work like a surround system.
I think herewith lies the difference between us. My audio system is put together to reproduce live performances as closely as possible. It is not designed to impress or who people. Non audio folks are not impressed.
Obviously youre big on impressing and small on realism - no problem, each to his own.
Regards
Paul |
"What is the difference between movie sound and music sound"
Case closed ... |
every time you play a song, it puts wear on the record which affects the sound quality
True in theory I guess, but I have LPs that have been played thousands of times and they sound as good as ever - zero indication of any wear whatsoever. I have also never worn out a needle - a few had been broken by an ex with careless dusting.
I would say the advice that guy gave can be classified as an Eddie-ism.
Analogue is a lot more bother than digital. You need to consider that it will take a lot more actions to listen to music than digital requires.
Regards
Paul |
