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.
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
You are right I did not subtsantiate my remarks...but I suspect the wide availabilty of Vinyl is mainly because average people are clearing out the attic and getting rid of their old Vinyl collections, garage sales etc. The average person has no more use for Vinyl then an old car with a carburetor that won't start on a cold day.
I admit that the average person may not be as informed as audiophiles about the poor quality of their choices...but nevertheless progress (if you can call it that) is relentless.
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.
Hey I have a carburated car! I enjoy it very much - there is nothing quite like the sound of air rushing down the venturi pipes when you accelerate. Fuel injection sounds so mechanical and precise, regimented and digital.
Carburetors however sound so melodic and rich with the feel of real power and presence. I particularly like the bass which FI totally lacks - it is kind of bright and edgy in comparison. Actually, I should say kind of grainy and shut-in. Constricted even. Carburetors are all about the constant flow of air - none of this digital crap - so they don't have these drawbacks.
But then FI is so much more efficient and easy to use. Just plop in and go. Even on cranky days it just fires up as easily as ever. Carburators on the other hand, are tough to deal with. Gotta adjust this and adjust that and make sure everything is right and that you give it some time to start up and get to cruising speed before getting in the groove. It is a slow process that doesn't always work the first time, so the convenience suffers.
But oh the sound. And the nostalgia! Those are worth something, aren't they? However you will note that today, basically all cars are fuel injected. Such a shame that carubreted cars are becoming vintage collector's items and are increasingly more difficult to find today. Even I have succombed to having a fuel injected car as my daily driver. Time just seems to move that way.
What a shame for those of you who dislike any form of digital, as the audio/video industry seems so hell bent on digital. DVD, Satellite and HD TV are obvious winners againt VHS and old analog signal modulation transmission like AM/FM etc. Online music and video on demand looks likely to kill these older formats forever....even CD, after surviving DVD-A and SACD will probably be displaced by some kind of MP format as the media of choice for audio. Analog will be like cars with carburators....vintage collector's items and increasingly difficult to find.
'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.
Cdwallace, you will not find any objectivist charts to show you the difference between digital and analog. If that is what you are looking for, it doesn't exist. If you would rather not be bothered with analog, that is fine also.
I concur with Mike, music is art, and cannot help but be judged subjectively. There are no charts to explain why someone prefers a Van Gogh over a Picasso. No charts to show why someone prefers chocolate over vanilla. No graphs will show why one prefers a convertible over a hard top automobile. If someone claims that driving with the wind blowing through ones hair is the best way to drive, should he have to provide scientific evidence?
Loosen your collar, live a little. If you do not have the funds for both, choose the format that suits your lifestayle best. Then just relax and enjoy it.
My system is not nearly as SOTA as Mike's, but I do have a fairly balanced budget between analog and digital. My digital rig is about 2/3 the cost of my analog rig. I also listen to digital 75% of the time. However, I, and everyone who has heard my system, even non-audiophiles, believe the analog sounds better, more-involving, than digital. I have no charts, but I and others talk less and listen more when analog is playing versus digital. I have no color charts to prove this, or explain why, it just is.
So why do I listen to what I claim is inferior sonically 75% of the time.....good question, Iask myself that often. The answer is two fold, first, digital has analog beat handily in the convienience factor. I'm either busier (multi-tasking) or just lazy sometimes (70 min play times vs. 20 min), or sometimes it's software that I don't have on vinyl. Secondly, my digital system does sound very good, it's not exactly a Best Buy special. One only notices the shortcomings when comparing directly to analog. I'm only dissapointed in my digital system if I try to switch to digital immediately after listening to vinyl. If I'm just in the house, and reading or working, and fire up the rig with digital, it sounds great.
Maybe you are best just to go with digital. Many do, for the sake of convienience and/or $$$. If you don't have the analog to A/B for yourself in your own system, you will probably never know any better and save yourself some dough.
Does any digital step in the recording process ruin music forever? What about digitally recorded music that has been mastered to Analog (Vinyl) - is this better than straight CD?
(I guess my question is directed to those that claim Analog is always better than digital. Conversion to Vinyl should, in theory, raise the noise floor and add back some of the distortion that is missing from a digital CD, due to the inaccuracies in the mechanical cutting, presssing and cartridge needle pick up process. Apart from hiss and clicks - most of this added distortion is probably harmonic in nature, and after all, that is what a tube amp does and this effect sounds very good to many people)
you write;"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)."
to me the 'better' or 'best' are improper to use toward art.....'prefer', 'more satisfying', 'more life-like to my ears', 'more involving'......would all be ways i would describe how i view vinyl in relation to digital. i could care less about any subjective reasons. music is art. i eat organic fruit and vegtables because they taste much better. my wife tells me they are better for me for some objective reasons. i don't care about that.
the reasons i had sworn off getting involved in this subject again is that the whole need to find objective justifications why i like something gets in the way of the enjoyment and confuses what is important. why simply does not matter....TO ME.
i say....JUST LISTEN.
you wrote; "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?"
digital is a market driven product...and every new digital advance is market driven. the obvious ease of production and use of digital media and the economic force it causes are responsible for who buys what. performance audio issues drive vinyl.....and the maket for performance 2-channel audio is small (but feisty).
you wrote;"This speaks volumes to me, care to be a little more specific, based on your experiences?"
the whole culture of vinyl (buying, the 'art' aspect of album covers', cleaning, diferent pressings, tt set-up, taking the vinyl out of the sleeve, putting it on the tt, cueing the arm, dropping the needle, un-muting the preamp, then waiting for the music)....is all like foreplay. there is a small element of that with digital but it is truely different. anticipation is part of it. then the much more involving musical experience; which many times is soooo immersive as to 'demand' attention'. the relaexed nature of vinyl causes your body to be at ease. it is difficult to not pay attention. my body knows when i have listened to vinyl. it is physical. one of life's true pleasures.
OTOH digital gets a much lower portion of my attention; i need to concentrate to be immersed into digital and the level of calmness and serenity is greatly reduced. it is there....digital is not to be dismissed...but it is limited sensually.
with vinyl you are concentrating on the event.....digital is a little more about the sound.
you wrote; "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?"
if i were making an objective checklist of what the best vinyl does better than the best digital (and now we can use the word 'better').....
--much more bandwidth...lots more information....dramatically so.
--much more dynamic.....particularly micro-dynamic.
--much lower noise floor. there are many Lps where you can easily hear music that digital only vaguely hints at. noise on digital....musical content on vinyl.
--continuous. no gaps.
i realize that my above interpretations of my perceptions fly in the face of some widely accepted opinions on digital. on previous threads regarding this subject i have attempted to discuss these issues. at a certain point i decided that it was not productive to do so....and i simply did not make the points again. i could care less what some measurements say. anyone that has heard the comparison in my room would easily ageee with my points.
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 ;--) .
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?"
"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.
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).
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
"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. :-)
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
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?
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.
