I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music. Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
There are secondary (reflected) sound waves which come from the sides and rear of concert halls and other large venues that do get recorded onto two channel formats. And with proper processing can be extracted and redirected to additional channels/speakers, even though in an actual concert hall setting, I never noticed sound as coming from anywhere but the stage -- reverberation is all enveloping; only echos seem to come from "somewhere" and are greatly frowned upon in the design of concert halls ;--)
Nevertheless, a good two channel system in an acoustically adjusted listening room will produce all those secondary waves accurately and from the (seemingly) appropriate directions using only two speakers, and it's not clear whether the necessary information is captured any better by analog or digital recording techniques. With a purly digital recording/playback process (DDD), my sense is that it's a tough thing to achieve using plain ol' Redbook, and maybe that's the attraction of SACD or DVDA for some. However I have several (Redbook) HDCDs and XRCDs whose sonics equal my best LPs.
So anyone who has really great gear of both kinds really should try some of the XRCD releases -- especially the orchestral ones made from the old RCA and Colombia mastertapes which you can (if, like me, you have them) compare with their original LP counterparts. I think you'd be very surprised at how much great sound never made it onto the original vinyl ;--) .
Interesting observations Nsgarch. I gave up on multichannel attempts at recreating a concert hall at home many years ago. I also agree that there is a lot of information on the disc's to be recovered, much of it is the out of phase information present in the recording venue, which unfortunately is hard to reproduce at home unless you have a perfect acoustic.
In a less than perfect acoustic, there is an old fashion method of getting that 'hall sound' which is cheap and easy to set up (so long as your not too anal about absolutes). I can't recall off hand the name of the designer, but the idea was to place two small speakers in the rear of the room, or preferrably one on each side of the listening seat. Connect the speakers in a loop with one wire connected from the positive post of an amp to the speaker A, then from speaker A to speaker B then back to the hot positive post of the other channel in the amp. You insert somewhere into this loop and attenuator so you can balance the sound with the main system. The side/rear speakers output is kept very low and only produces out of phase info but the room sounds energized and more like a concert hall. Using a seperate amp you can turn it on and off at will, but its possible to wire this into the main amp (I'm to anal to do that).
This type of ambiance extraction existed before Yamaha and some 'other outfit long gone' (I had one of 'long gones' units) produced a unit which did the same, but added digital delay's so you could select hall size and all that other stuff. I think the extraction you are referring to comes from equipment made by suceeding manufacturers. Got to be too fussy for me and actually never sounded as good as the cheapo way. Although from all I've heard maybe ARC got it right in their unit.
Fun stuff if you've got the space, and I think I'd find this much more interesting that the new multi channel recordings and the replay requirements.
"However I have several (Redbook) HDCDs and XRCDs whose sonics equal my best LPs.
So anyone who has really great gear of both kinds really should try some of the XRCD releases -- especially the orchestral ones made from the old RCA and Colombia mastertapes which you can (if, like me, you have them) compare with their original LP counterparts. I think you'd be very surprised at how much great sound never made it onto the original vinyl ;--)"
gosh. there are times i wish i had not vowed to abstain from posting on digital verses vinyl threads.....like right NOW!!!
Well Mike, there was a (dark) time when certain major recording companies were trying to get the most onto vinyl instead of the most out of vinyl -- i.e. Dynagroove (and don't think RCA was the only culprit) but thank God for Mercury! My point is that a lot of old mastertapes which were never really properly cut onto vinyl have received new (and better) lives on XRCD.
Would they sound even better if transfered to properly cut and stamped discs? Probably. As a matter of fact, I recently heard a couple of those classical (RCA) releases on R2R 7ips tape, and except for a little hiss, the tape sounded way better than the LP. Better than the XRCD? I couldn't say, too close. .
Harvard University School of medecine (early 50's)NEJM Bell Labs MIT USC repeating Harvards study---THX A few more that have simply confirmed earlier Bell Labs findings in the 1940's
Scientifically proven. Its the information that motivated serious companies to spend serious money to try Quadraphonic, the boat anchor of home audio.
As for your overly simplistic view of what surround does for the audio signal, Well ten years from now you'll undertsand finally.
Nsgarch,
Nevertheless, a good two channel system in an acoustically adjusted listening room will produce all those secondary waves accurately and from the (seemingly) appropriate directions using only two speakers.
Sorry absolutely wishful thinking, counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers. And there are toher factors that profundly affect 2 channel playback of digital in a very negative way.
Aren't there already enough phase problems with 2 channel stereo?
I've never heard a multi channel system that didn't sound less artificial or incoherent then most 2 channel. It's fine for "shish, boom, bah!" noise making.. but I'm into the reproduction of music in my home. If I want something else I can go to the movie theater or club (I've heard psychedelic trance produced for a surround system and played back in a club specifically set up to do it. Awesome.)
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.
"If you listen in two channel only, you are not getting the best digital has too offer. Infact you're getting the nasty end of the stick."
unless you're referring to multi-channel SACD.
However, I have experienced every derived-ambience/multi-channel processing technique that's been devised, including all those created by the film industry. Everything from the old sum-difference technique Newbee described thru SQ and Quadraphonic records (and tapes) and all the various permutations of "surround" starting with the first Lexicon 7.1 processors. In the late 60's, I participated in the first controlled study of human stereophonic perception while studying psychoacoustics at MIT (pre-multichannel of course, but we all had at least two ears;--)
After all that (and my reason for returning to a purely two channel source/playback arrangement,) it became clear to me that multichannel, from the simplest home surround to the most complex 500 channel arrays used now for computerized concert hall design, does one thing: it produces a virtual sound field -- it can reproduce a real one, or create a "designed" one. Nothing wrong with that (except for all the additional hardware,) and most effective when done in an anechoic space.
However, in a properly designed live-end/dead-end room and optimum speaker/listener placement, a two channel playback system will accurately re-produce an original (i.e. recorded in a real space) sound field. What it won't do (very well) is create virtual sound fields: computer games, HT surround sound, or "studio created" multi-channel. I did find "designed" or "studio mixed" multi-channel stimulating for a time. But for me, it added absolutely nothing to the performance -- the Art of music, or the impact/realism of the kind of movies I usually watch at home. Eventually the novelty of the "ping-pong effect" wore off. My listening room provides an excellent natural (as opposed to virtual) sound field without all the extra hardware, so that's where I wound up: I got bored with multi. Others may not.
Your comment:
"there are toher factors that profundly affect 2 channel playback of digital in a very negative way."
You couldn't have been more accomadating in demonstrating the incorrect assumptions associated with this part of our hobby. Your education and experience only highlights how little is understood, and I will apologize for some of the information I share as it does not put your comments in the best light. People like Pauly and Queg may not realize it but they do have a great deal to learn about audio, and I hope that's a truth they can handle. Spending money is not experience, listening is poor experience and yet that seems to be all the qualification anyone needs to be judgemental about who knows what. Its ok I'm used to it.
1. All of your expirements where in analog and FYI a full decade after the multichannel expirements by your school and Harvard? Were you in the psych department or audiology?
"the first controlled study of human stereophonic perception" I have conflicting data, in the 1930's stereo was being tested on human beings. By 1950 Discrete surround was available in the theaters with some of the greatest orchestral recordings being 7 channels? Your tests were irrelevant and decades obsolete as it regarded audio and human perception. Sorry to inform you.
2. The fact that you have TRIED to use and are familiar with all of the algos of surround simply does not impress me because you still call it a "ping pong effect" and that is IMO unnacceptable results, and I although most people who don't know what they're doing listen in "ping pong", I don't and won't! Most audiophiles cannot discern when they are listening in surround on my systems to recordings they know very well. And they are shocked by how pathetic 2 channel sounds when the surround is turned off, but that's just hearsay let's get back to facts.
It unfortunatley appears you have never heard a properly set up surround system atleast one set to my standards.
3. Since you have the science background, explain to me how a two channel system (which you do not own one BTW, you have a 4 channel system) recreates the 360 degree algorithms present in all reverb and harmonizing equipment used by professional studios to make recordings?
"I don't understand. Maybe you could elaborate?"
try to answer question 3 and you'll have 1 of my anchors to that comment in my previous post.
4. "I got bored with multi", no you still own a multichannel system which having been an owner of Martin Loagn CLS's I can tell you that you don't have a natural soundfield, you're stuck with one that you accept as the truth and for a few recordings maybe its close to "natural" but for all of the others you simply accept it as truth. Dipole speakers like ML and Apogee and Magnepan were the gateway to my surround philosophy, which was born out of necessiity since I often lived in places that would not allow proper set up of Dipole speakers.
5. "However, in a properly designed live-end/dead-end room and optimum speaker/listener placement, a two channel playback system will accurately re-produce an original (i.e. recorded in a real space) sound field."
Your dreaming and even though that may be the best 2 channel can do, and let me remind you once again you don't own a 2 channel system. To believe as you do you are ignoring microphone pickup patterns and other fundamental noise and signal issues.
So you need to rethink your philosophy a little to accomodate the truth of your reality. I'm not making a judgement about how your systems sounds, I am giving you facts about what your system can and cannot do.
Think about it. Why do you have a 4 channel system with fixed reverb and you're climbing all over me when your 3/4 the way to thinking the way I do? Just need to move those effect channels a little tis all. ;)
BTW: All of the comments about research can be found following the research of Thomlinson Holman and THX and research done by Bell labs for the military in the 40's. The germans we're expirimenting with differential audio signals in the 30's.
Harvard's surround expiriement I believe was in New England Journal of Mediceint but it may have been early 60's, same with MIT's version of the expirement.
BTW nice system too, is that the best one you have?
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
"recreates the 360 degree algorithms present in all reverb and harmonizing equipment used by professional studios to make recordings? "
Okaaay.
As far as I'm concerned we're talking about apples and oranges. I'll go with you that these effects sound awesome on multichannel. I've used similar digital software effects in my Logic based studio (spatializers and such).
But I don't believe RVG used much "harmonizing equipment".
Of course it is true I still have very much to learn about audio. :-)
in the end,to really find out what vinyl is like you simply have to live with it for awhile and decide for yourself.all too often we want to hear that THIS is better than THAT when all it is is different.each medium has it's place in my system.just my two pence.cheers
"As far as I'm concerned we're talking about apples and oranges."
You're not letting go of what you see, stuck in the same box everyone else is. Two channels two ears, laughable and ridiculous
"I'll go with you that these effects sound awesome on multichannel."
Typical audiophile response, actually they don't "sound awesome" they are distributed properly and not smashed between me and the subject of the recording. Thus they don't sound bad. Surround relieves a negative.
To simplify this for explanation, 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. That noise is disproportionately high harmonics thus hi frequency, shift the balance of the recording
A 360 degree system will not collapse the circle into noice but retains the general shape of the circle. It disperses the high frequency energy created by effects in their proper form, keeping them from dissolving into unrelated noise like a two channel system does.
RVG is ancient history, and yet benefits from surround as much or more than a modern pop recording. Recordings that have "hall" sound like classical recordings from a soundstage ebnefit even more from surround.
I respect your preference and I'm sure your system sounds great. In fact, I'm sure I'd enjoy your system very much.
But I prefer something different in my own home.
Somewhat related: I just interviewed with one of the top multichannel system installers in the country yesterday. I expressed my preference for 2 channel vinyl systems and suggested they offer this option to their clients.
It will take more than your preference for two channel to not get a job, they will overlook that flaw in your logic if you're actually qualified for the job.
Fact is can you setup a theater correctly? Setting up a turntable is a great deal easier than setting up a multi-channel system. ---------------------------------------------------------
Audio Rule #1
Every man believes he's born with all the audio knowledge he will ever need.
Queg -- maybe I'm missing something here, but I was under the impression that you took the lack of response to your recent job application as a supreme compliment, or at the very least, complete stupidity as to your qualifications.
D edwards: I wasn't interviewing to be a tech or engineer. They needed an experience operations guru to help streamline their project management and workflow process. I wouldn't have been speaking with them if I wasn't sufficiently qualified. Frankly, it wasn't a good fit. I didn't show enough enthusiasm because I didn't have enuough enthusiasm.
On topic: High quality 2 channel (which, like Ozzy, I suspect you've never actually heard) has a subtle but exceptional emotional quality that (for me) became discernable only after many, many hours of alone time (rather then show off time) in my listening chair.
Like taste in music, it's a personal thing. I don't proselytize, or try to make others hear what I'm hearing and "convert" them.
1. That my system is mediocre?, when you never heard it or anything like it?
2. That pictured is my only system?
3. Do you really think closeout Kevlar mids and Vifa poly woofs are "high quality"?
How about some of the best you can buy?
Is my ATC Anniversary 50's, ATC SCA2, Lake Contour, ATC Concept 4 subwoofer good enough to qualify as quality?
You'll note the comments in my system thread mentioning the once pictured Anniversary 50's when it was connected to Meridian surround gear
I designed the speaker system in my profile and it works exactly like its supposed too. And I'd rather show that system than some some system that anyone could buy ;).
D Edwards, nowhere do you talk about the QUALITY of the sound coming from your system. Only the effect of our surround setup. You brag about your system being so great. I'll bet my system matches yours on a couple of other "measurements": accurate timbres, harmonic structure reproduction (especially in acoustic intruments and vocals), non-fatiguing.
Your altruistic "its all personal" outlook, is simply lip service I just thought I'd point out that you might want to stop saying it because its obvious you don't believe it.
You should say "If I approve" reference your statement below.
"High quality 2 channel (which, like Ozzy, I suspect you've never actually heard)"
BTW, how do you like my ATC system? Good enough for you?
Here's my favorite comment;
"exceptional emotional quality that (for me) became discernable only after many, many hours of alone time (rather then show off time) in my listening chair."
If you would actually follow up on the information I gave you or ask for more specific info to find it, you'd find that 2 channel is inferior in this emotional aspect to multi-channel. You rebuttle me like you know the facts and done the research, but you have not. Your idea of knowledge is consensus here and satisfaction resolved by sitting on your butt listening to old jazz records. Awesome research methods! If you refuse to learn and still maintain a differring opinion, that's ok but understand yours is an uninformed position.
Pawlowski;
Why do you think I would accept any compromises when listening to surround?...is this assumption extrapolated from your extemely limited experience with surround systems?
The effects of the surround are directly related to the quality of sound, ie much better for digital sources in all areas.
Which was my original comment. But all these arm chair guru's who have all owned and operated state of the art surround equipment in their homes like Lexican't...seem to have their minds made up.
Paw, here's the quickest way to make my point. The guy who designed your speakers, agrees with what I'm saying, so maybe you should sell your speakers or better yet buy a Meridian processor and 3 more Jr's and get rid of the tubes. You'll never look back. I never did, and when I did it surround was hardly what it is today.
Look I would love to have a discussion with you guys instead of deflecting your baseless comments. But it appears still this is all I can expect from you.
Nsgarch, have you looked for the MIT surround research, it was done in 1965, but I will have to go to a good library to find it again. Did your work ever get published? I wonder if I read it?
I am simply curious if Nsgarch research was published, it is not a slam, because getting your work published is a very big deal and hardly automatic, unless you have a job as an audio reviewer :). In the mid to late 1960's MIT and a few other Ivy league medical schools in the New England area engaged in behaviour research with audio, and much of this research is more medical or psychology related than for pure audio performances measures.
I have read many of the MIT Journals and New England Journal of Medicine articles on these experiments (Tvad).
So I was just curious if his work was in the journals somewhere. What were the results? Why can't we discuss these things and build on real data, not just on what we "feel" is right.
I am dying to learn something on this forum, Nsgarch has superb credentials but my assertions that his speaker system represents a crude multichannel system goes unchallenged and there's no technical explanation on how he believes that two channel systems can recreate a true soundstage relying on room reflectivity and absorbtion, if he refers me to the studies that back this up, I'll go read it.
I want to know, because maybe part of my idea and part of his idea = the best solution.
Ded_wards, I haven't searched MIT's archives lately, but I'm sure you'll find it under the Dept. of Physiological Psychology, ca. 1964-1966. The title of the paper is "Controlled Studies in Human Stereophonic Perception."
We had hundreds of volunteers (S-T-E-R-E-O was everywhere!), and more important, the first computer system large enough to crunch statistics and probability -- at the same time! So, no study of this type was even possible any time earlier.
Although my little project wasn't specifically concerned with re-producing virtual sonic environments using only two loudspeakers, in 1997, a fellow at MIT named Bill Gardner did his PhD thesis on that very subject. You can read it (150 pages) at:
For those of you too busy to read it in detail, it describes a way for producing a "sweet spot" anywhere in the listening room through the use of a procedure called "head tracking." But it leaves no doubt that full re-creation of a sonic environment is possible using only two loudspeakers.
blah, blah, MIT, blah, published, blah, blah, research on a BB,blah, blah,my pompous ass is bigger than your pompous ass, blah, blah, useless drivel, blah, blah, small minds, blah, blah
a friend of mine who actually pretty much sold me all of my equipment as a sort of hand me downs when he upgraded convinced me when i mentioned that i wanted to get a sacd player telling me that the cds were going to cost a pretty penney when you can go out and hunt down some vinyl and pay pennies on the dollar for it. he sold me his old optonica direct drive which i grew to love. well after about a year i ran across a nice pioneer belt drive in great shape. still this rig here on audiogon would be concidered a junker but the belt drive really kept the noise down. well its been two years now and now i have a revox linear drive and moving coil and all. probably 1000 or so records and honestly i still enjoy a cd from time to time but you just can't beat the affordability of records now their fun to listen to and their fun to find at garage sales flea markets or the best is when a friend of a friend knows that your into vinyl and give you their old record collection that thy could not throw out. its a great hobby. now as far as the digital goes i recently upgraded my turntable and my cd player and actually can hear the differences in both. went from an older 1990ish yamaha to probably same era sony that was a higher end unit at the time and noticed big diffences in smoothness and low end bass. very interesting to play around with but i much prefer tweaking my analog rig.
Here is an update on this thread. The originator, Musicaudio (Andrew), after being very impressed by the Esoteric DV-50S, as stated in the beginning, became much less impressed after owning it for a week, and has now sold it.
John is correct. I have sold my Esoteric Dv-50s. I said goodbye to it after watching the Lord of the Rings Special Edition triology. A 12 hour event. The Esoteric is by far the best player via movie soundtracks, but music wise, it was just was too detailed and a bit harsh. Shopping around, I am happy to say I did hear my first very pleasing Vinyl sound demo. It was in Audio Synergey (I'll give them a plug) in Philipsburg, NJ. I listend to a Krell 400XI, Krell Resolution 3 Montiors and he had a Krell 300 CD player and some $200- Czech Record Player. I was quite taken back to how good it sounded, especially for $200-. Sounded great with the Krell gear. I am thinking of going back and getting it and hitting some record stores. I know there is one down in Princeton, NJ that sells records for like a $1-. Once again, thanks to everyone that has responded to the forum. They all seem somewhat enthusiastic.
I agree with Paul about the phonostage. Spend as much as you can on the phonostage. It's a worthwhile investment for now and the future. You don't want your foray into analog cut short because of a lousy phonostage.
From your post it sounds like your looking at getting a Music Hall turntable. I have never heard one personally but I have heard good things from them. Just keep in mind that you cannot upgrade the tonearm on them(at least not to my knowledge). If you really get into analog(as I suspect you might) you will find that the tonearm and the cartridge make a enormous difference in the sound you get from your turntable. Just something to think about.
Congratulations! You have just taken your first step into a larger world. Let us know how it goes.
I have a question...can any of the analog guys explain why they can only speak about analog, down digital and still pose as experts in on the related topic? Or is this just another "fear what you don't understand" moment?
Certainly not to offend anyone, but its apparent that analog is celebrated. One reason is because it somehow validates or justifies the stagnant position in the overall technological advances of your analog systems. It doesn't validate anything for anyone other than you. Thats the beauty of subjectivity though...facts just aren't important and pertinent...even in audio. ;(
I'm just a bit curious because no analog person has yet to explain why one would leave analog anyway...if digital is as bad as the consensus has spoken. Why would anyone even consider the switch, nevertheless post the question, if analog is so superior to digital? I'm only hearing and reading why each individual hasn't grasped the concept of digital. The answers are overly subjective and opinionated, nothing concrete and factual. Granted, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I would expect as knowledgeable and respected audiophiles, you have drawn your own conclusions based on fact and not "pseudo-emotional" playback, bad system planning and purchase, or a 3/4 moon in direct phase alignment with Saturn, Neptune, and the planet formerly known as Pluto.
CDWallace -- Like most things in this material world, it's about money.
On another thread, someone (not me) commenting on thee SS-vs-tube amp neverending story, made the brilliant observation that the sonic qualities of tube amps out-pace SS amps at a given price, until you get up into the megabuck range (Lamm, Levinson, Goldmund, FM Acoustics, darTZeel, Pass, and so forth) at which point it really becomes an absolutely moot issue -- really! It simply takes a lot of money before SS catches up to tubes. My guess why (and it's only a guess) is that folks have been working with tubes longer.
And I think the situation between analog and digital playback is similar. If you spend megabucks on digital, (Wadia, EMM, CDS, Esoteric, Aural Symphonics optics, etc) the analog/digital debate becomes moot again (assuming decent LP/CD software for each.) HOWEVER, if you spend less than megabucks for BOTH your analog and your digital gear, the analog is going to sound better than the digital for the same reason that modestly priced tube gear sounds better than modestly priced SS gear: Analog has been developed and refined for over 85 years vs. digital for barely 30. So of course a MODEST analog rig will smoke a MODESET digital rig. What the hell would you expect!
And though I own great examples of both technologies, and enjoy them equally, I know in my heart that analog has pretty much reached the peak of its development, while digital has only begun to be explored -- just to offer a single "for instance": what will happen to digital audio reproduction when 3-D optical storage becomes available? Think about it. .
it is a mistake to confuse preferring vinyl to being anti-digital. digital does not need to be better than vinyl. there is not a market justification for the musical performance of digital to equal or exceed the musical performance of vinyl. digital simply needs to be 'good enough'. when the market is there for better digital then it will happen (in other words; the record companies want to re-issue everything again and the technology has matured to make the delivery method cost effective......in digital it's all about the $$$'s).
why would one like/love both vinyl and digital? it comes down to the music (remember that?)......and also about one's listening environment. if you want to be able to access all the music that you want you need to be multiple format. there is lots of music on either format that is not on both. plus; it's fun to compare.....at least for me. also; there are times when i am not in the mood for the additional focus and hassel of vinyl or i need to multi-task (easier with digital). on vinyl many times the music totally 'demands' my concentration and devotion.
i have personally made a commitment to having the best possible vinyl (Rockport Sirius III) and the best possible digital (EMM Labs Signature) so i have a bit of experience comnparing SOTA for both. i also have 6000 Lps, 3000 cds and 700 sacds. i love them all.
even though i clearly prefer vinyl (it's not really even close) i totally enjoy digital.
i made an exception to my 'no posting on vinyl verses digital thread' vow to answer your thoughtful question as your question is neutral.
and BTW Ngsarch; i don't think Vinyl is done getting better.....although they are closer to their optimal point than digital (hopefully digital will improve anyway).
"it is a mistake to confuse preferring vinyl to being anti-digital."
I agree completely. However, I must point out that personal preference for vinyl (subjective) should not be passed as knowledge of the topic at hand, is digital actually better than analog. To appropriately answer this question, I would assume it would require knowledge of both pro's and con's of both analog and digital (non-subjective). Again like I said before, everyone has and is entitled to thier own personal preference. But how can one provide an unbiased answer unless preference is removed and factual pro's and con's are processed (facts). Intepretation of the result is then left to the question poser (subjective).
"when the market is there for better digital then it will happen (in other words; the record companies want to re-issue everything again and the technology has matured to make the delivery method cost effective......in digital it's all about the $$$'s)."
Would this constitute suffient explaination of why CD sales alone almost unreachably exceed vinyl sales, when factoring sales of CD's and vinyl outside of the perameters of "high end" or audiophile reproductions?
Re-releases can also be accomplished far more easier and cost-effective when you are taking an already digital media and enhancing its digital makeup, then taking an analog media and recreating it digitally. Would you agree?
"there are times when i am not in the mood for the additional focus and hassel of vinyl or i need to multi-task (easier with digital). on vinyl many times the music totally 'demands' my concentration and devotion."
This speaks volumes to me, care to be a little more specific, based on your experiences?
"i have personally made a commitment to having the best possible vinyl (Rockport Sirius III) and the best possible digital (EMM Labs Signature) so i have a bit of experience comnparing SOTA for both."
This mindset is the saving grace of audio. The perpetuation of both analog and digital. This is very commendable of you to maintain an open mind and optimistic outlook.
"even though i clearly prefer vinyl (it's not really even close) i totally enjoy digital."
Much appreciated but still subjective to some degree. Being experienced in both areas, can you help me understand how you came to this mindset, based on factual information and results?
"I don't think Vinyl is done getting better.....although they are closer to their optimal point than digital (hopefully digital will improve anyway)."
Agian I will agree. Vinyl isn't done...but it won't go much further. When comparing the time used for the development and advancement of digital as opposed to the time used for the development and advancement of analog, the sky is the limit for digital.
IMO, I think this is something that should be looked at by both enthusiest of analog and digital. What is optimal for both methods? Vinyl for analog? Surround for digital? Uuhh, moving right along...
"No question that analog isn't going much "further" and digital as Yogi said "has most of its' future in front of it"."
Then I would assume for the sake of analog and its enthusiest, its good this question was raised now, and not 5 to 10 years down the road.
"I enjoy all of it and simply let the chips (no pun intended) fall as they may."
I wish I could say the same, but my budget is limited as for audio, and every penny needs to be spend wisely and optimally for performance. I can't afford to buy based on emotion or a whim. Not that you are, I can only speak for me... I can't. Realistically speaking, how many people can, beginner, advanced, novice or anywhere in between?
"As Raul says relax and enjoy the music."
When I relax, which one will relax me more to allow the original recording and artist be effectively reproduced? Hence, the question and topic at hand...even with the other questions it will no doubt prompt..."Is digital actually better than analog?"
What I want to know is: why can't they package the CDs in a decent 12x12 inch gatefold jacket so there's some real content to read and look at while you're listening to the album for the first time. Hell, you might even forget and think you were listening to an LP ;--) .
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
