DTM, try Music Direct on the web. They have tons of albums new. And many new releases, as well as older titles that have been reissued. |
Have fun with 16/44.1.
I'm sticking with vinyl. If they can't get digital to sound better than vinyl after 22 years, and they can't get a higher resolution format to do it either, then they ain't gonna do it. Especially if the public isn't buying. The digital future is MP3 or something like it. You already got the best you're gonna get. The joke was played 22 years ago. Alot fell for it, and some didn't. I didn't think the joke was funny in 1981, and I don't think it's funny now.
If the major music companies can't get SACD or DVD-A to go over, then they will assume that there is no demand for a hi-rez format. They will just make some kind of suitable copy protection for whatever format they decide upon, which will likely be a compressed format for portable entertainment purposes(like MP3).
The fact is, you wanted your "Perfect sound forever", and you got it(?). You scorned the vinyl world, and embraced the digital devil. Now you have to live with it.
There is still a "sub-culture" in high end, known as "analog". These are the people getting the most from their source material. They are still being called "anachronists", "vinyl fetishists", "nostalgists", and "Luddites". I know, because I have to take that regularly.
At this time, there is, without a doubt, somewhat of a vinyl re-surgence. If enough went this route, there could be enough demand to keep a steady flow of new vinyl, and analog gear for the high end.
I think that this is what we should do. It will give us better sound, and eliminate the "angst" over new digital formats and copy protection crap.
Just how many times oversampling will it take to convince you that it just isn't going to happen? Oversampling, upsampling, downsampling, interpolation, no upsampling, jitter reducers, digital lenses, 1-bit, 20 bit, 24 bit, DSD, tube dacs, green pens, Buddhist chants. It just is not going to happen, folks. Time to wake up from the bad dream.
Get into analog, and there is your hi-rez format, just where it has always been.
I know this is hard medicine, but what do you think us vinyl guys have been having to swallow for over 20 years? We've watched all the music dry up, and go to digital formats. We've seen cost increases and less selection of our analog gear. We've borne the brunt of scorn from our fellow audiophiles. It hasn't been easy for us, but we've kept the vinyl flame alive for all of you, so that when this point came, there would be somewhere to go. If we hadn't done that, there would be no analog refuge from this digital crap-storm.
Join the analog resurgence, and make that the "new" hi-rez format that the manufacturers will support.
Just my 2 cents. |
Brianmgrarcom, I agree. Not all think that LPs are for them. But the people who are happy with their digital aren't looking for new hi-rez formats. In fact, it seems that there is great opposition to the high-rez stuff on these pages, and one can only conclude that there is no desire for anything better than CD, for many people on this website. There have been numerous discussions, that I'm sure you've read, that show major opposition to hi-rez, ranging from claims that is not better than CD, to fears that their expensive gear and music collections may be obsoleted. Ones who are looking for better sound have some other alternatives, besides the next digi-disc of the month.
I never meant to say that analog is for everyone. Only for people that are looking for more out of their high end systems. Those that are satisfied with CD, can stay right where they are. |
I'm sorry Brian. Sometimes I get a little carried away on this subject. No offense intended. |
Joe, you gave me a good belly-laugh! As if I had never heard a "state of the Digital art" system!
I agree with some posts above that some music is simply not available on analog, and that is a good reason for having a CD player. I tried to use them quite a few times, in fact. Always hopeful that it would sound better. Finally, I decided that it was good for the car, so I kept some of my CDs for that purpose. For the home, I felt it was a waste of my valuable tube life, to play something that could not make good use of my high resolution audio system.
I assure you that ignorance of audio products is not the cause of my love affair with vinyl. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I am well aware of what digital can do, and that is why I am sticking with vinyl.
I do notice, however, what is constantly brought up in these anti-vinyl arguments. It is having to clean the records, having to get up off the chair to change the record, having to take care of your adjustments and your equipment, and potential clicks and pops. I find this very interesting. It is also frequently sprinkled with phrases like "get into reality" or "living in the past", like Joe, here, has so aptly demonstrated. I don't ever hear things about CD is more musical than vinyl, or sounds better. Only stuff about black background and convenience. This is very telling abuot the mindset of many of today's audiophiles. Sound is secondary, convenience is paramount. I can easily get a black background by shutting off my system, but that doesn't provide me with any musical content, does it? Now, where is the line drawn, where it is ok to start reducing musical capability to retain black background? There's your dilemma. What you all are telling me is that you are willing to accept a lesser audio quality, in order to get noise-free convenience with remote control. That may be fine for you, but it is not fine for me. This is where we seem to differ. I will accept less convenience, and more possibility of some noises, to get more musical content out of my system. Getting the most out of an audio system used to be what defined an audiophile, from a mass market person. Apparently that is not the case today. Today, it is the best reasonable sound without too much difficulty. Oh, I know that you will say that you are getting the maximum sound quality possible. I say, Not True. I say that you are getting the maximum sound quality that you will accept, given the convenience levels offered. I know that this is not a popular point of view. It forces many to look at their choices as not audiophile. It is not pleasant, but it is a fact. Now, I don't claim that there is anything wrong with making a choice like that, because convenience and black background are very nice. But, I do claim that there is something wrong with defending that choice, by saying that it is the sonic equal of something that it clearly is not the equal to. Just own up to what you are really choosing, which is convenience at the expense of some sound quality. I own up to the fact that I am choosing highest sound quality at the expense of some inconvenience and some record noises. Attempting to demean me with derogatory statements does not advance the argument. The black-and-white truth is plain. I accept less convenience, and some noise, and you accept less sound quality. If you want to change this, the avenue is plainly available to both of us.
So, by all means enjoy the digital scene, and have a good time with your music. I will be back in my Troglodyte cave, with my vinyl and my tubes, and my single driver speakers.
And, if it needs to be stated, this is all my humble opinion, and is not intended to offend or rebuke any of my fellow audiophiles. I profusely apologize for any offense that may be taken. Everyone is entitled to their own choices for their own reasons. And I have not called anyone any derogatory names, or implied they didn't know anything, as has just been done to me. It's okay to do it to a vinyl head, but not okay the other way, right? Don't worry, I've been called names by CD people for 20 years now, and it is still happening right up to this very moment. I'm used to it. Seems the CD people are pretty thin-skinned about any criticism though.
I am simply calling it as I see it. |
Okay Joe, point taken. Fair is fair. But you missed my point. I am not trying to be the "Saviour". It doesn't matter to me if people stay with digital, because most will. I can use what I want, and am not directly affected by these digital format wars. I am making a point that other people don't have to be subjected to this format war nonsense, if they don't want to be.
This copy protection thing is going to happen. The music industry is determined to make it happen. They have publicly stated that they will make it happen. They have petitioned the government to make it happen. They also are the same people(Sony/Philips) that own most of the major music producing companies, and own the patents on the CD and SACD digital formats. They will make what is going to be sold in the stores, either directly or by licence agreement with other manufacturers. It will be copy protected.
Now some people would rather not go along with this, and they are not necessarily backward thinkers. Maybe they can avoid this whole obsolescence thing by using something that is already considered "obsolete" by everyone except the highest of the high end audiophiles. Whether you agree, or like it, or not, the top of the high-end is dominated by turntable systems. This is not because these people want to "revel in anachronism". It is because these people have realized that the technological progress has not led to sonic progress over previously available media. It is not my doing. But I certainly see it. And hear it. So I simply point out that a person could avoid all this format war stuff, and get better sound at the same time, by going analog.
Now you may not feel that analog is better sounding than digital, but I assure you that the top end of the audiophile segment does not agree with you on that point. The top layer is analog, and has always been analog. Unless digital advances further than it has, the top layer will remain analog. I remind you of the constantly recurring posts on this forum that refer to "how can I make my digital system sound more like analog?", or "what is the most analog sounding digital player?",or "can adding a tube dac smooth out my digital source?" or references like,"this mod made my CD player sound almost like analog",etc, etc. When was the last time you read a post asking "how can I make my turntable sound more digital?". Please.
I am not making this up. It is real. I can't help it that some people do not want to accept this. That is out of my hands. I am simply stating that there is another way that some may find more acceptable, for several reasons, now that this format thing is happening. For those that want to stay with the digital thing, fine. Nothing is stopping you. But it seems that there is a very touchy point that causes outcry, when people are urged to try a different route than the ones the majority are traveling. Perhaps it makes the majority nervous, that some may not think like them.
The fact is that analog exists, and it is a viable format for listening to music. I am regularly reminded of what a no-no it is to recommend something out of the mainstream. But the very best of anything is never found in the mainstream. If you want the best, you have to look outside the mainstream. This format war has presented an opportunity for people to look at other options for advancing the quality of their audio systems. I suggest analog. Is this a violation of the "digital law" and now I have the "digital police" after me?
Every time I have mentioned that digital cannot compete sonically with analog, I have had somebody try to shut me up. Well, it ain't gonna happen. I am as entitled to my opinion as any of the rest of you. And I can promote my ideas here and elsewhere anytime I want.
Did I try to make a big deal about it when some of those above, like Tweekerman, said they like CD over analog? No. Do I make a point of trying to minimize people who think digital is better. No. I have to deal with that every day on this forum. It is the mainstream thinking. But I do state what I consider to be a fact, that on an ultimate scale, analog is better sounding than digital. Any available form of digital. I don't require that anyone agree with me. But it seems that some digital people want to require that I agree with them.
Look, I can sum it up this way. Digital is a sampled representation of what? Analog. It is generally conceded that higher sampling rates will better simulate what? Analog. The perfect digital representation would be what? Analog. If we could have the perfect digital format, IT WOULD BE ANALOG. What more do I need to say? I've wasted too much time on this already. |
Leaving vinyl out of it for the moment, I have had SACD and CD players, and felt that SACD was significantly better(comparing equally priced components). If I was just starting out, and assembling a collection of digital software, I'd rather use SACD, if I could get the titles I wanted, which wasn't the case. I think that the low selection of titles is hurting SACD more than anything else. The sonic improvements are there, even if some consider it small. And I agree with Phasecorrect, that the majority of opposition to hi-rez formats is coming from the CD contingent, for whatever reason. I really did not expect that. I expected the CD folks to jump in with both feet. I mean there is no obsolescence, you can still play the CDs on those machines. The smaller makers will not get into it, if they see all the digital folks "digging their heels in" in opposition to them. |
