Yea, but you guys forget, that ye olde braine converts it back to analog as the music hits our emotions or are you guys tickled by electric impulses???? (; |
On the other hand however, to pay justice to digital, the art of digital recording has tremendously improved in the last 10 to 15 years. Recordings of small combos, indidividual solo instruments and voices seem to my ears mostly better rendered through the digital medium, simply have more presence and imediacy than analog. The harshness which used to plague early digital and made it unlistenable for me is thankfully no more. All the same, I would never give up my analog rig, because with big orchestral music, digital falls sadly short so far, even though well designed USB-DACS like Steve Nugent's "Spoiler with PaceCar" show promise also in this field, in spite of the fact, that here silences are really pitch black (;
Cheers,
D |
Davemitchell is right to my mind and ears: If a LP is properly cleaned and well treated, there will be no clicks and pops on a properly set up TT and quite often, Abe, there is a hell of a lot of hiss on prerecorded open reel tapes. I know, I own and listen to a lot of them. Abe is right about dynamic range of digital, but wrong to my ears about "details" and if you are familiar with live music and take that as reference, "black background" to my ears is completely unnatural ( just as a noisy one of course ). Rather the background in a good concert hall is full of tiny reverberant clues, it "breaths" so to speak and I would expect that as well from a good recording of classical big orchestral music. Even the great Zanden or the DCS gear will not pick that up, a good analog recording of a classical piece will. The proof lies in the listening.
In fact I am wondering, if by the means of clever advertising and constant repetition of it, one of the central failures of digital, the lack of rendering of all the necesary ambient clues in a recording have not been turned into the so called advantage of "black background". There is simply no such thing in a live event as every regular concert goer knows. |
Hi Guido, do you think the Panocha disk would also work with ferrets? We have some frolicking in the attic. Yes, and I must try the Lenny CD. It might get the ferrets out of my head...Seriously now, I also know quite a number of redbook CDs full of ambient cues. But that is not quite what I meant.As you probably know, there are cues much more subtle than the ones you refer to. You can hear them in those silences, which simply are not "black" in reality, but also in the way a tone will spread into space, creating an aura around the instrument. Here to put in bluntly, both analog and digital fall terribly short. I always get a shock, when I settle down in orchestra hall and hear the first notes spread in the hall. And, there is just no way around this, the analog facsimile of this, though still far off the real thing, does come closer. The soul of music, to come back to the essence of this thread, can be found anywhere, even on a table radio. If the music moves you, the gear rendering it, is of no importance. However, if you wish to come as close as possible to the real thing in your home, for classical music, as far as i am concerned, the "soul" still has its lonely place in analog in spite of the fact that sometimes digital comes close and can enthrall you. If however the music becomes more complex, where the tiniest of modes of intonation and tempi play a role ( I am thinking of the Alban Berg Quartet right now and their ensemble playing)and you begin to compare the same take both in digital and on LP, you will be amazed, what digital will gloss over and thus in a very subtle way change the piece. Of course I don't know if it is my gear or the medium itslef, which falls short.
Anyway, basically I don't worry about these things, don't even think about it, when I sit down to listen to music. I am glad we have all these media and can pick and choose for our enjoyment. We are truly privileged and i am very grateful for that. |
Guido, since English is not my mother tongue, I would not have the vocabulary to describe what you have so beautifully put forth, it is now my turn to say that I understand what you mean... in spades! Thank you!
Mrtennis,
Yes, we do not speak of sound here, we speak of music. The former of course will not, the latter however may touch the soul. Of course it is both semantically as well as psychologically not quite correct to say that music has soul. Music may move your soul. Per se however music, let us take a Bach fugue, is a mathematical construct within a certain set of rules and boundaries, written down to be turned into sounds, which, when performed, we, especially if we have been socialised within the same cultural context where these compositions stem from, will percieve as music. Music, as we all know, can have an emotional impact on us, will trigger feelings, which sometimes even will touch the realm of the transcendental. Such music, we say colloquially " has soul " . There is a beautiful phrase in German which points into the same direction: Here we say a certain interpretation of a certain composition is "beseelt", which is best translated as "endowed with soul". I think basically up to here, we are in agreement. I would also see eye to eye with you in your statement, that quality of recordings have nothing to do with soul. I just have to think of most of HP's (TAS) favourite list of recordings and to remember how often some of them bored me and left me unmoved. I liked the sound, but not the music.
I also agree with your statement, that at best soul inheres in a live performance. I suppose we are in agreement, that most of us in our hobby try to come as close as possible to our perception of live music through our rigs. Now, just speaking for myself, I have lots of redbook Cds the sound of which I find great. Amongst those -within the classical realm- there are only two performances, solo performances, mind you, one by Hilary Hahn, the other by Janos Starker, which really move me and let me forget both rig and medium. I could recount infinitely more instances of analog rendition, which will do the same for me. This is only me naturally, hence of no statistical relevance at all, I realise that, also of course, as you say, this discussion could very well be held within the music section of A. as well. However, within the context of certain shortcomings which digital still to this day seems to have vis a vis LP or analog tape, in the rendition of the total "gestalt" of a musical performance, the chances are great, that LPs will get under your skin much more often than digital would. So, even though I would wish that it were not so, the medium, especially to someone deeply spoiled by live music, is still quite an issue to me and hence reason for me to join this discussion just here, where I find, it rightly belongs. |
Drubin,
thanks so much "for the flowers". I just read your comment right now after having written the above. Glad I'm not alone on this......
Cheers,
D |
I think I'll join the fray again here, in spite of what I had said before:
1. Music can move you, no matter what medium is used toconvey it.
2. Once you have become an audiophile, sound matters, sometimes more than music. One might even go so far as to say, that music becomes just a means to an end, the end being to prove to yourself and others, that your rig sounds "right". That is one extreme of the complex phenomenon of audiophilia.
3. The other extreme is the music lover, who will indeed be moved by music, no matter what the sound, who -also an audiophile - will build up a system, which he feels will produce a sound in his own home, which will best transport the essence of music, the concept of which has most probably be formed by his listening to live performances.
Where in the one extreme music serves the sound, being subservient to sound, example being someone showing off his rig with the latest audiophile recording of a musically irrelevant ditty, like from the infamous "Jazz in the Pawnshop", proudly pointing out every belch from the audience there.
The other extreme now would be an audiophile for example, who settles down to listen to a newly bought piece of music, which he had first heard on his car radio and which had moved him. He wants to hear it now in all its glory, hoping that the sound would serve the music, bringing out all its "soul" . If the rig sounds right to him, he'll get it in spades, the sound being a faithful servant to the music.
But what happens if the rig does not sound right? Most probably all "soul" is spoilt and gone.
This is one of the crucial moment in the life of an audiophile who is also a music lover. He will find, if he is introspective, that his loyalties are deeply split. He loves music no doubt, but he is also deeply attached to his rig. The rig should be servant and do its job as deliverer of sound and you will be able to forget about it, as long as it functions well. But if it does not it can spoil the music and the servant may turn into a tyrant. There is true love on the one hand (music) and on the other a "narcissistic fixation" (rig).
MrTennis is quite right in pointing out to us that "soul" resides in the music and not in the "sound". But in this strange neurosis called Audiophilia, sound, especially if it does not sound "right", will drive out all the soul from the music. The "dark angel" winning over the good angel "soul ".
This is just the point, where sound suddenly becomes immensely important and could spoil all the fun. If we were wise men, we would shut down the rig, take the cd to our car, drive to a nice spot we know, plunk it in to the player and get all the "soul" we want. Why? Because we don't care much about the car-radio, do not give it importance, so that sound can serve the music again undisturbed by our narcissistic predilections. Well most of us ain't wise, I certainly am not, rather we would forget about the cd and will worry about what is wrong with the sound and what we could do about it........
What now is the point of all my blabberings here:
Not all audiophiles love music. There are lots of variations between the two extremes . And of course not all music lovers are audiophiles. To them the sound matters not, the music does. Here MrTennis' argument holds good. On the other hand of course, the same argument will irk and insult our sensibilities as audiophiles. We know that he is right on the one hand, but with no pity and feeling for us at all, his reasoning cuts like a razor across those disturbances and upheavals in our inner being, when the rig just won't sound right and it spoils all our expectations for a wonderful shot of "soul". Only we know, in the dark night of our insulted ears how terribly important "sound" can be. Yes it does not carry "soul", but it can ruin it. It can ruin it because of our split loyalties between the music and the soft-and hardware. So to us, with our strange affliction,
"soul" is only forthcoming, at least if we sit in our listening chair at home, if the "dark angel" of the machine and the "good angel" of the music work together to form "soul in the home". Oh what bliss, if that works, because then we can forget that the life of an audiophile can be compared to a man who has two exacting ladyfriends at the same time, who both clamour always for his full attention. Strenuous at best, hell at its worst, but bliss, when all are combined in "soulful union". (((-; Detlof |
Mapman,
to my mind and ears it is very much like you say. I've tuned the LP part of my system to LP, the digital part to digital, using software which I know well in the process. Ty my ears both sound good, however different, which does not bother me in the least as long I get drawn into the music and can forget my rig. |
True, as far as I am concerned. |
Shadorne,
Interesting point you make about the masking effects in our hearing. I will only worry me, I suppose, when the masking effects our rigs have vis a vis the real thing will be no more. Doubt though, that this will ever happen.
Great discussion by the way. Am learning a lot. |
Chris,
Basically I am complete agreement. Digital however has improved in the last decade and these days you can set up a system, I would say in the way Pscanli has suggested above, which will give you the same micro and macro dynamics as vinyl/analogue would, *IF* you stick to voices and small groups, string quartets, Jazz-combos etc. I still cannot bear digital with big symphonic music. There is still too much missing, which a good analog/vinyl rig will give us plenty of. |
Tbg, I suppose "soul" is, when there is no trace of listener's fatigue and when the music really gets under your skin AND you forget about your system and nothing but music is left. And yes, finally, says the old vinyl man, digital has come a long way indeed. Especially if you listen to it the way you suggest!! |
As a second thought, to get both formats right in one and the same system is a hellish task. I've tried it for years. You can get somewhere, yes, and learn a lot along the way, but you will never know what both formats are really capable of unless you treat both sources as complete separate entities with entirely different tweaks and AC-management. In my system the preamp is happy with both, as well as the amps and the speakers. |
|
Guido, leave the pebbles on the beach--times will change again--as well as ye olde Zeitgeist and Weltanschaung. We have to go through this. I'll be holding thumbs for all of us......
Cheers,
Detlof |
"unfortunately our neurophysiology in its richness and complexity transcends the trite definitions of 'analog' and 'digital'."
Of course it does Guido.... we were just making fun for heavens's sake ((: |
Hello my old friends,
I've been away from the 'gon and this thread for about three years (but not from music) and see that not much has changed in the way of mostly valid arguments defending the one medium from the other.
I have not bothered to read my old diatribes which seem ages ago, but my ears have probably not changed, nor has my gear. Digital is still the Zanden chain or the "Spoiler" USB DAC, analog is WAVAC and a heavily modified Goldmund REF and I still cannot stand big orchestral classical music via digital. There is too much missing on ambience and air, but love small combos, Jazz and voices and here I prefer digital mostly over analog. Not to forget old R2Rs properly dished out by my Studer A810. Here many prerecorded classical tapes will clobber digital any day - to my old ears at least.
Cheers to you all and happy listening,
Detlof |
Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio proudly declares that his latest USB dac finally not equals but may even surpass vinyl. The man has golden ears apart from being a technically ingenious and highly innovative. I find , that he is right. It is all there now, the soul I mean. It IS still different from vinyl, but digital is not musically "dead" anymore. Even older CDs can be brought to be "soulfully" alive. I find the discussion of what is "better", digital or vinyl, should end. The music has come home to us. |
To my ears digital, done right, has finally come home...with the right gear. |
Correction:
I should have written that Steve N. declared that his latest DAC finally not ONLY equals but may be even surpass vinyl.....
Sorry |
I tend to agree with Koplo above. A good setup, though always sounding subtly different, compared to a good vinyl setup, sometimes even betters it in subjective listening tests, EXCEPT for big orchestral classical music. Redbook, in what ever way it is processed, just cannot do it here to my ears. Neither can SACD nor can HiRes files.
However with voices, chamber music or jazz combos, in a well set up computer rig, the soul is definitely there.
If even then you cannot hear it, the reason for it lies not in the music, but elsewhere. |
I haven't followed the entire thread, but I'm inclined to agree with Nilthepill- almost - but then, I first refused to believe my ears, I listened again - in my system no less - to a well set up Goldmund Reference I, a Clearaudio Insider and a WAVAC phono. I hadn't listened to vinyl for five years, but now through this rig and listening to big orchestral classical gear my truly unwilling answer is: "NEVER" at least not with that kind of music.
Mrtennis, Yes I do see your point... and I have been moved by music from a table radio, because the musical message was so strong. However, if audiophilia goes together with love for music, you would expect from your rig, that it would move you emotionally with the right kind of music. After all, that is what you set it up for, to listen deeper into the essence of a musical piece. Exceptional systems will reveal information which a simple system really cannot and the deeper you are enabled to listen into the interweave of a complex musical message, the more you may become enthralled by it. This is a simple truth I'm afraid, though elite in a way of course, which may make it unsavoury to many. However, the sad truth is, if you're used to guzzle cheap wine, you wouldn't know what a good bottle of Bordeaux can do to you. You may get drunk on both, but the way to there is oh how different.
Cheers, D, |
Shadorne, just for the record, I don't bash digital. In fact I like it and can get drawn into the music with a well recorded cd. The Zanden combo is magnificent and what it does to redbook is simply amazing and also the DCS combo with SACD gear can be highly satisfying. USB dacs, like the Spoiler are pointing a way into the future. However, as Nilthepill so rightly points out, analog is closer to the real thing. If you are familiar with that, there is no way around it. Anyone is free to prefer whatever he or she likes. That is entirely another matter. Therefore I tend to consider all the bickering about what is "better" futile, boring and besides the point. I you like big dynamic swings, black silence between notes and an etched out presence of voices and instruments within the soundstage you MUST prefer digital. If you wish to "feel" the presence of the hall, where the music was recorded, consider "blackness" as unnatural, rather have the silence between notes "breathe" as the sound softly decays in minute reverberations, you will prefer LPs or prerecorded tapes, because it comes closer to what you might hear in your favourite concert hall. As most things in life, it is a matter of taste, where everybody is free to prefer what is pleasing. Anyway, even the best rig, be it analog or digital falls sadly short of the live event. Neither digital nor analog provide sufficient "air", that is space where the sound , emanating from every instrument, seems to float and spread in space, to come even close, except that analog sometimes seems to mimic that just a tad better. |
Hi Newbee,
Heck I wished i had never confessed about that language thing....it makes me feel embarrassed now..., but besides my red face Newbee, I absolutely agree with everything you say here and neither am I in disagreement with Mrtennis as far as the above is concerned. It IS the performance together with the composition per se, which may carry meaning and can touch the soul. I have no quarrel with that in the least. The only thing I am contending and will keep on maintaining is that this thread belongs rightly here, because of the simple fact that until today there seems to be a better chance of being moved and touched by an analog attempt to mimic the real thing, especially with complex classical music, inspite of the undisputed shortcomings of analog, simply because analog in many cases ( not in all of course )still conveys more information than digital will. So the medium matters also as far as "soul" is concerned, with the right kind of music and its interpretation of course. Not to all and everyone of us of course, but to some and I happen to be one of them. This is quite an objective find, which in experimenting with a group of friends was repeatable, as we have done here but at the same time it is paradoxically purely subjective and applies only to myself and some other kindred spirits which, I suppose, have been bitten by a peculiar substrain of that bug called audiophilia, which will drive you to almost every live concert in town and compel you to do (almost) everything to put together a rig, which will help you to achieve a similar frame of mind, or of "soul" at home with the right kind of music. If you like digital, like I do and use it and enjoy it for what it is, but find it falls short for reasons sufficiently discussed in these posts in the rendering of certain types of music, then I simply fail to see that the medium should have nothing to do with conveying "soul". That at the same time you can experience this and be moved by music from a table radio is another kettle of fish entirely and has nothing to do with the question if digital will finally be able to convey soul or not which we are discussing here. Contrary to MrTennis I find this discussion here under this heading appropriate and legitimate in spite of the fact, that I agree with most of what he has to say.
Cheers,
Detlof |
Obviously this group of music lovers over here, including myself must live on another planet, since
"there is no evidence that enjoyment of music is highly correlated to sound quality. in fact there were two studies published in stereophile, authored by markus sauer, which indicated that the satisfaction accruing from listening to music was not highly correlated with sound quality".
Then the enjoyment of a painting does not correlate with the quality of a painting, a good cigar not with the quality of the leaf, a good book not with the quality of the writing, o good glass of wine not with the quality of wine. Aw well, if that is the case, I'd rather be on my planet... and of course the issue of digital vs analog vs live music is one of sound quality. No doubt about that. But if you demand good sound quality, the chance of you being moved by lesser quality, especially if your are blessed with a first class system, is rather slim. Well, I rest my case and get some "soul" from my rig, analog no less and I am out of this thread. 'T was fun, thanks to all.
Detlof |
Newbee, Mapman, sorry to -in a sense- to disagree with both of you. If you are crazy enough to try and drive both formats to the limit of what is possibly today, not even in terms of money, but that also, however certainly in terms of tweaking, you will find that both formats have advantages over one another. Old vinyl still reigns supreme in terms of classic orchestra, digital in other fields. None is "better", both are different and you can count yourself lucky, if you can get the best of both worlds. Wished you could come over to the Alps so I could show you what I mean. |
"I think there is a clear difference between the best digital sound and the best vinyl sound. The first is very musical and the second can be very real sounding, as though you are there at the recording."
Tbg,
I really like that. It is certainly worth pondering about. If you equate "musical" with what we might hear at a live concert, especially when the music starts to really draw you into it, I think I must fully agree with your statement.
Happy listening to both sources! |
"This is only the beginning of better things to come."
Steve,
Last not least thanks to your work, I think you're definitely right on that one.
On the other hand I cannot quite agree with what you say about vinyl. New hardware, from AR to Lamm, just to mention some, show us, that there is more in those grooves than what we thought possible. |
