"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 ((: |
Ah thank you Detlof. . . I think I need to get my humor detector looked after. . . I've been laid off last Thursday and I'm taking things far too seriously. . . do you think that taking a micro Brilliant Pebble a day for 30 days might help my uncharacteristicly grim Weltanschauung? I am thinking that if it does not help me directly, at least it will benefit the finances of old GK (grins!) |
Rob321
"I mean beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Perhaps spelling error?! - it should be "beauty is in the eye of beerholder" |
|
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 |
I have a high end analog rig
when I want to hear the passion and dynamics of the music I play this. I use a loricraft record cleaner and pops are virtually non existent
my digital rig is good and needed for much music not available on vinyl - it gets most of the elements
but the weight around notes and strings especially can't come close
try a silent running audio platform under your cd player
it will take the stress out of the component
and make your digital more lifelike
music is where the soul of it is
not the type of source
although that can limit the enjoyment if not optimal |
What I didn't think was possible(I kept quiet, and was happily listening to[my much improved]analog.)has happened! I will have to verify this in my own system, and it is a prototype. I heard Ori's(Oritek Audio) battery-powered(and not just any battery)Pre/Dac. In fact, I was just discussing if digital was ever going to become music with him, when he used this. The main thing was that you could listen into(and all the way back)the music. The music was whole(like analog)-and not just individual sounds. I could actually live with this! Digital usually makes me tense(and that is my main objection to it). This Pre/Dac wasn't. We switched to analog(upon Ori's insistence), and this was the main difference: Analog was cloudier. Analog's voices maybe were a little more realistic. Separation was interesting. I would say that digital still slightly draws the music to the new sound a little unnaturally(I think this could be taken into account somehow in the recording process). I'm not sure if analog's separation was quite right, either. Analog was slightly(and I mean slightly)more relaxing. Anyway, bottom line, I think an analog-lover could live with this. Nothing I've heard(and I haven't heard everythig, but everyone "oohs" and "ahhs" over slight differences in digital, while it retains the same unlistenable characteristic)to date has made digital into music-until now. To give you an idea, I have heard the Berkeley DAC(modified). While it is closer to analog in sound, it does not cross the threshold into music(for me). I was a little sceptical when Ori asked me to hear his battery powered Pre/Dac, but I should have known better(the preamp section of his pre/dac is world class, his modified Stereo 70 is a poor man's Lamm). I just had no hope for digital as music until now. |
Mmakshak, I have had a similar experience with my new Mac/Amarra/Firewire/Weiss Minerva. I have found the soundstage more precise, the top end sweeter and more extended, and the bass deeper and less one note in character than my vinyl system (Shindo Labs combo).
I sought to get more information on Oritek but their webpage cannot be found. Do you have a link? |
1-16-10: a date which will live in infamy....... |
Tbg,I emailed Ori about your not being able to find his webpage. Mapman,I would like to have more time to listen to his battery-powered Pre/Dac in my system, but for me, you're right about a date that will live in infamy. Some questions still arise in my mind. I would think that somehow the low resolution of standard cd could be heard, but I don't think it will be disturbing. If microphoning would be less ping-pongey with digital, I think that would help with the illusion of music(I'm thinking about one of the Dire Straits cd's.) I think I might prefer listening to mostly digital, but Ori showed that analog is a teeny bit more relaxing, but digital is not tense now(I feel it in my throat.). Analog seemed to fill the spaces between sounds a little unnaturally(cloudy?). Tgb, consider yourself lucky, as I've never heard digital that was music until now. |
I don't know with absolute certainty; however, I believe redbook often gets an unwarranted bad rap - I've listened to some cd's that sounded great because what occurred upstream, i.e. recording and mastering, was great. |
Redbook CDs can range from spectacular to unlistenable with some too boring. |
Hi Muralman1,
Agreed :-) Precisely what you stated can be the result irrespective of medium.
Best,
Sam |
The more you spend,the more soul you apparently get.
Well at least the Sony XA5400es challenges that assertion. |
LPs tend to have better mixing/mastering (or are selected from good recordings to start with). Poorly recorded very low quality LPs won't sell since currently it is only audiophile market while CD will sell no matter how bad as long as music is popular. As Muralman said there are some exceptional CDs showing that media has potential and can challenge many LPs. Audiophiles don't have any buying power in CD sales and cannot influence quality of recordings. The only reason, in my opinion, for pushing better sounding schemes like HDCD or SACD was to bring very strong copy protection. SACD doesn't cost more to print than CD but they felt that charging 100% more is OK. |
Been there for years... Museatex Bidat. |
I haven't looked further into this site, but this does work. http://pwp.att.net/p/pwp-oritekaudio |
multi layered discs do cost more to manufacture than single layered. |
Jabo - it is probably penny difference.
They sell us same DVDs for $20 that they sell in China for $2. In order to protect their insane profits they forced DVD player makers to play only one region (otherwise somebody would export DVDs from China to US). They would not sell in China (and other places)at loss. How is it possible that things like CDs or DVDs that supposed to cost couple of dollars cost so much - the same way breakfast serial cost $4 instead of $1 - phony competition and monopoly. |
actually dual layers are nearly twice as much to manufacture. cd's, sacd's and dvd's contain royalty payments to artists, publishing royalties, marketing costs, e&o insurance, and numerous other guild payments....i'm sorry, but a 2 dollar dvd sold in china or anywhere is a pirated copy, unless its a cut-out and the royalties were already paid. sometimes cover art and/or an artista likeness needs to be licensed as well. |
No Jaybo - They sell originall DVDs for $2 there. That what regional code was for. In 2006 Time Warner was selling DVDs for 10 yuan ($1.25) while Twentieth Century Fox was planning to sell DVDs for 20-25 yuan (about $3). Both companies admitted that profit will be very low and main reason is to "combat" piracy (read: better small profit than nothing). At price of $1.25 they still admitted profit - insane. Competition is phony (collude) and we're being screwed. At least piracy levels the field there and forces big companies to sell at normal prices (good for the people).
All royalties and cost of printing comes to about $1 per audio CD. Rest of it (remaining $14) is a profit. Even if you double production cost for SACD it is $2 versus $30 selling price.
Nothing new to it - a little bit of cornflakes and cardboard box ends up magically $4. TV station started investigation and next day they became silent. I suspect they were threatened to loose all advertising.
|
the cost of replication does not cover the publising per unit, the cost of producing the record or cd in the first place (amortized),the artists' royalty per unit, the musicians' royalties per unit, sync rights per unit if dvd, marketing, distribution, healthcare for artists and employees, freight, sometimes tarrifs, and ultimately, the put-upon retailer must make something.....you simply have to do the math, in any region, in any country...these are intellectual properties, not bubble gum....a tragic crime in any country. |
Jabo - Not only they did't fall in love with Chinese people enough to sell them DVDs below cost but they admitted small profit at $1.25 Let me be generous, in spite of such admission, and agree that $3 is the price in China. What the heck - lets make it $5. Why do we have to pay $20?
What regional code is for? It is simply to prevent shipping DVDs back to US (with a profit) - no other reason. |
listen to a K2HD or XRCD 24; SACD perhaps. the former two play in regular CD players and in a good system sound phenomenal. Much better in fact than even most well recorded CDs. After listening to K2HD, I concluded there is no rationale reason for SACD. And, my Alesis CD recorder can record perfectly this awesome sound. May sound heretic, but that's what my ears are conveying to my brain............ |
While I prefer vinyl/analog sources; I have heard players that do put the soul in digital recordings. I have one and it is musical as all get out. I'm even allowed to forget it is digital. Bought second hand it was still very expensive but I can listen for hours on end without fatigue
which is a new experience for me while spinning discs.
I wish I could do the same with vinyl but I can't afford a butler to flip the vinyl
over to side two.
|
Prosoundman, you going to keep the identity of your player a secret? G. |
just wondering by digital are you guys meaning using the digital out on the cd player instead of the analog or cd's in general |
(Referring obliquely to first response) It seems for me anyway, The Sim Andromeda does. More so than Eclipse. I cannot identify all the attributes, but for one the timbre of instruments, dynamic contrast, detail, etc. Power conditioner helped (Running Springs Audio Dimitri im my case). AT a much less price point it seemed the Sony XA5400ES had some good midrange, and I would day soul, depends on how you identiry that. I tried that for a month in October 2009. Thanks.
Bill |
Longer note - I was reading the notes by Levinson in the Cello Palette EQ manual. Recording the tonal balance correctly in digital mastering varies. This is because the digital mastering equipment varies as well as equipment in home sound systems. The results are often of unenhanced, partially stripped sound quality that's variable from home to home when the engineers playback equipment doesn't match the sonics of home system. This may shed the most light on why individual CD's when recorded well, will perfectly match a particular individual home system, while not other systems.
The Palatte EQ is high end and has 6 frequency controls with +/- dB attenuations. Levinson says use all 5, using your ears, and quickly tune in best tonal sounds of each CD. In effect, your spinning dials just like a final master mixer. Although I don't find most EQ's as desireable, I feel this is a very sound explanation to why many CD's sound lifeless or partially stripped and a very well thought out way to correct it. I'll spin 5 high end dials to tune-out digital tonal system mismatches. This goes one step beyond a perfect set-up.
Palettes are rare and expensive. I did notice after a very careful set-up, a significantly better sound improvement. I placed my SVS Ultra-13 in the 10Hz tuning crossed at 50 hz to match mains at ear level directly behind the main seating position. It's very accurate. The 10 Hz tuning change sweetened the subs notes up close, squeezing them through one port like massive vocal cords. Very enjoyable. It also somehow enhanced the mains mids and highs resulting in better analog-like tonal imaging and clusters of unique sounds.
If anyone has good experiences using a sweet EQ in this manner, please pass to us. It would install between my digital source and Proceed AVP 2 +6 preamp. Thanks to all. |
I just sent my Sony XA5400ES to Dan at Modwright for some soul. Can't wait to hear his Ultimate Truth Mod...and I get a tube rectified external power supply as well!! |
NEVER!!!
There, I said it!! |
I think that 24/192 hirez does get the soul, it is so much better than redbook. That said vinyl in a direct comparison still sounds.. like vinyl. But I think that a really good dac playing 24/192 files is certainly competitive with a good TT ( and the digital setup will cost less and be way more user friendly) is it as good as the state of the art in analog, well for what one of those would cost I think I'll take my Ferrari in black please :-) |
Puh-leeaze. Any piece of music that can be so easily killed just by digitization, well, it must not have been very soulful to begin with.
People who think vinyl is "soulful" and that CD's aren't, they clearly have no historical perspective. They're the same ones who would've argued during the days of wax cylinders that audio recording was anti-musical, and that music should be recorded only as sheet music. Yet somehow, the soul of music just continues to pervade all of these ignorant arguments. |
The point is we need to keep the heat for high rez. there is a seroius to say digital is already perfect or maybe even too good for the masses. Sampling rates are just part of the problem. |
"Although digital may be more detailed, and even gives more detail than analog does(in a way), when will it convey the soul of music. This has escaped digital, as far as I can tell."
Have you tried any of the current DSD recordings? |
my thoughts are that digital gets let down through the transfer stages of becoming a CD/SACD,etc.
It (digital) has probably a more accurate reproduction of a master tape than a vinyl master/pressing.
Why? As I record my LP's in a DSD format for convenience and availability, I find it hard to discern between the LP and the digital playback of it in DSD.(Korg DSD recorder). As I get into PCM, the quality starts to lessen and differentiations start appearing. Probably also less data space is required as we go down from DSD to 16/44.1. In easier terms I would say 45rpm presings better than 33rpm, etc.
So digital can convey the soul, but I feel during the transfer chain we are not getting the best out of it and it starts to loose out.
Hence we have all these formats such as High res downloads, SACD, Reel to Reel, XRCD,K2HD,etc.
Redbook certainly does not have enough space for the amount of music record companies want to put on it.
Record companies are also tactful for the fact that if they eventually do let out a quality so close to the master tape -then the game's over for them- as they will never be able to sell another version of a 're-mastered' 'higher ultimate quality' ,etc. again. After all how often have the Beatles, Sonny Rollins, Miles Davis, Rolling Stones have been re-released and we know we haven't seen the last of it or a special edition.
So my final view is that vinyl and digital both have different presentations and if you can get lost into either of them more easily, you will feel the soul. Easier on vinyl though.
Cheers,
Neville |
Nevillekapadia - SACD is DSD |
Thanks Kijanki.
You are right, DSD is the format used for making discs that we call SACD. A better format than PCM redbook playback. |
I love vinyl even though I think the reason why it seems to sound better is a combination of fluff, overdrive, gain, distortion, imperfections, etc. Digital doesn't really have that... everything that distorts in digital is like nails scratching a chalkboard. However, when something analog distorts (I'm using the term loosely, not technically) it sounds a little fuzzy. More fuzz and you get warmer sounding perception. It's the same reason guitarists like me love tube amps.
I bet if people used tube amps for their hi fi systems, they'd get more warmth. Some do, but it's expensive!
In the guitar world, they're more affordable... usually just 2X as expensive as solid state. So a $200 ss amp will be about $400 if it's tube. There are more expensive ones that go for $1000, $2000, etc. Whereas in the audio world, the contrast in price in simply inaccessible... $20,000? Insanity! It is hard to find any tube guitar amp for more than $3000. |
I think MSB has done it. I have the power DAC and a friend just purchased the DAC IV Platinum with the CDIV transport. Digital never sounded so good. My power DAC holds it's own but the DAC IV is so open, so reveiling I thought I would cry as I listened to his system. It was chilling. |
One of the closest I've heard, is the Exemplar/Oppo, by Exemplar, of course.
This, while not analog is pretty remarkable sounding, and very tube-like, yet without the tubes. Lush midrange, great bass, imaging--very analog sounding for such a reasonably priced piece--$2500 US.
Try to hear one, its worth it to hear this piece.
Larry |
I'm going to say it will eventually get there but not with anything we have currently. Redbook CD will never get there in my opinion. It's too course to possibly trump vinyl.
Higher resolution perhaps but it hasn't happened yet. I have hope because a fair amount of work is going on in this area. If only high-rez files would come along. They are, however, I'm sure they will never be mainstream.
SACD is in the ICU because few are providing software for it.
DVD-A is DOA... |
My Modwrighted Sony XA5400ES has plenty of soul and zero digititus"O) |
I have three digital sources that are quite acceptable to me, although I still prefer vinyl. My Mac Powerbook Pro with SSD and playing Pure Music 1.65a in Memory mode with Entreq FW through my Weiss Dac202, the same source using Entreq USB through my H-Cat Dac, and my Exemplar Oppo 83 are these three sources. As yet, I have heard no better digital regardless of price. |
Just noticed this thread has been running since the beginning of '06, really shows how this topic of analogue versus digital is such a biggy, but unnecessarily so. I have only read the last page of comments, but what stuck out was the comment by Engelgrafik that "everything that distorts in digital is like nails scratching a chalkboard", and the answer is as simple and as complex as that -- distortion is distortion is distortion.
It is relative easy to get analogue to sound "good" because the heart of it is a mechanical process; digital's heart is very complex electronics, and so the task of eliminating "nasty" distortion is much, much harder. You have to work at it and work at it, but the end result will be worth it.
My experience is that digital "done right" in a match race with analogue will most definitely be the winner, and by this I mean experiencing the "soul of music" will be able to be fully realised! But, and a big BUT, if one tiny, tiny thing is not working correctly in the digital setup then it can crash and burn, big time!
An analogy is a performance vehicle versus a comfortable, sloppy springed family sedan. The latter will always be pleasant to drive even if out of tune, but the former will be a monster, and you will hate it if something is not working right. But get it right ... then you'll prefer the performance vehicle.
A key indicator of digital working well is that there is no such thing as a bad recording, you can enjoy the "soul" of everything you have ...
Frank |
I am amazed that people still hold the opinion that digital is such a poor performer. Superb CD machines have been extant for at least 12 years and I'm talking redbook, not the SACD or DVD-A variants. I'm not saying this is the case here but for many years internet forums have been awash with claims that vinyl still massively outperforms the CD and people often cite experience as proof. I find it hard to accept claims of "proof" when it's often pretty obvious that the claimant has never attained anything like a good digital set-up, yet still asserts that it's a rubbish medium.
I have been living with my current system for around 8 years and it's CD redbook only. I had given up vinyl some 15 years previously and decided to try it one more time, once I had got a superb CD player, in part to see how it compared. I got myself an LP12 that a local enthusiast was selling (he also was going the CD only route) and pulled out my old vinyl collection. Whilst the detail was certainly "there", so were all the old faults that prompted me to jack it in the first place. The ability to play pops, hiss and crackles with great clarity reminded me why I hated vinyl so much. And how did the sound of my CD system sound alongside the LP12? Let's just say I never want to go back. The issues that people often cite as problematic with CD have not been evident since I attained a high end system, especially since the upgrade of my power amp. No harshness, no sterility, and certainly it has plenty of "soul". The one thing I would add, and it highlights something I have been harping on about for years and something most of you will also be acutely aware of, I'm sure - that of SYNERGY. My Meridian CD player had to go to the doctors a couple of years ago for a new laser and I was forced into using a backup player. I then understood what people were talking about when they complained of the sound of CD and also that of the ear-bleeder remaster. For the first time in years, I experienced listener fatigue.
It's a Herculean task to assemble a system, the infinite combinations of kit and environment make it hard enough. Spending many hours of time and effort assembling what people think will be a system which eventually kill off their "upgrade-itis" will not necessarily result in satisfaction. No-one likes to admit failure, especially when spending a lot of money but the fact remains that sometimes this is what has happened. I have often encountered people on internet forums who cannot listen to a lot of their music for one reason or another - as it sounds harsh. Yet they proudly present their expensive and esoteric system for all to see, just to lap up the praise for the aesthetics. I'm sorry but that always sounds to be like a lack of synergy and consequently poor system matching. I am a canine psychologist and I always say to clients that "you do NOT need to put up with bad and anti=-social behaviour". The same applies to us audiophiles - we should not put up with sounds that displease, however much has been invested up to that point.
I wish people, instead of stating "CD as a medium sucks", would just say "I have yet to hear it in a favourable setup".
And before anyone gets defensive, I am not referring to anyone specifically, as I only read 10 or so responses to this thread. |
Niacin, ... hear, hear!
I would just make the comment that what you call synergy I have found to be that combination which minimises the level of unpleasant, low level or "micro", distortion. Many people, as you say, don't seem to realise that that is what you need to do, which is of course a great pity ...
Frank |
With all due respect, I feel that you need to re-visit vinyl sound, on an audio system capable of reproducing the soul of music.
Digital that comes close counts on one hand fingers, 5 that is (maybe), IMHO, of course!
Best,
Alex Peychev |
Aplhifi, see again my earlier response. Yes, it it easier to "reproduce the soul" on vinyl, but only because it tolerates more sloppiness in the setup! You have to be more precise, more careful with digital, and a lot of the industry apparently still doesn't get "it". Slightly, very slightly askew digital can be intolerable, so if you want to enjoy "digital soul" you have to put more effort into it to get it just right ...
Actually, a very simple analogy is (appropriately!) digital versus analogue TV. Most people would agree that with good reception digital is superior to analogue. But, with slight levels of poor reception, it becomes extremely irritating to watch the digital signal; yet poor analogue can still be enjoyed and followed even when it is severely ghosting, say. I know, in many ways a poor analogy, but what I am trying to say, is that in some ways the nature of digital is that the quality of it is either on, or off; great, or pretty awful.
Frank |
Hi Fas42 - I want to respond to a couple of points you make: "distortion is distortion is distortion," and "A key indicator of digital working well is that there is no such thing as a bad recording, you can enjoy the "soul" of everything you have."
Am I correct in guessing that you listen to primarily, perhaps almost exclusively, electronically produced music? This would be the only context in which I personally can conceive of anyone making the two above statements. Certainly digital can come close to analog in that arena. But if we are talking about recording the human voice, or other acoustic instruments, such as a full symphony orchestra, then sadly, there are indeed very very bad digital recordings; in fact, the vast majority. To give just one, but to me the most damning example, digital processing simply removes too much timbral information, something that designers have always acknowledged and have never been able to fix, despite the great advances digital has indeed made. This is what most people mean when they talk about missing the "soul" in digital recordings.
And I would vehemently disagree with the first of those quotes as well. It has always baffled me when some audiophiles make this statement. Analog recording has much more distortion in it than digital, you are certainly correct there. However, the distortions inherent in the digital recording medium take place at higher, and therefore MUCH more musically objectionable frequencies. I am no electrical engineer, and others have explained the reasons behind this much better than I; I am sure this thread has multiple examples. I am, however, a professional orchestral musician, and I can tell you that I have never heard a digital recording of an orchestra, as good as many of them are, that sounds remotely as close to real as even an average analog recording. Besides the timbral issues I mentioned earlier, there is also the relative lack of ambient information from the original recording space - almost all digital recordings are multi-miked and then remixed so that any sense of the music happening in a real space, so important for most classical music, is gone. Even worse, the worst digital recording engineers will add to the mix a very fake sounding reverb in order to try to get that concert hall sound back again. Yes, analog has more surface noise - but this type of distortion is not embedded in the music itself, and can be listened through. Many of the ways digital processing distorts musical realities cannot be listened through, as they are embedded in the recording itself. Digital has indeed come a very long way, but in mine and many other musician's opinions, a few of it's flaws can never quite be overcome.
Please understand that I am in no way implying that digital is unlistenable or anything of the sort. There are many great performances that were only recorded digitally, and I am certainly not going to pass them up just because they were digitally recorded. I merely maintain that analog is a superior recording medium, if musical realism is the goal. |
