I have to ask this(actually, I thought I mentioned this in another thread.). It's been at least 25 years of digital. The equivalent in vinyl is 1975. I am currently listening to a pre-1975 album. It conveys the soul of music. 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.
Wow! I just got back my APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910. I can't believe it. I've only listened to Led Zepplin's, "Houses of the Holy", which I'm not too familiar with, and Neil Young's, "Decade". Let me tell you, I couldn't tell "Decade" from my analog set-up(which is no slouch-Linn, Ekos, nude Archiv, Lingo, and Mana Sound Table). I actually went to my turntable three times while listening to "Decade". Once, when I went to the bathroom, to see where on the record the needle was. I also went to take the arm off the record when the cd was done. I understand that a lot of cd has to do with recording quality. My current understanding is that analog to digital is good, and that later cd's are much better recorded. But, who wouldn't like analog sound with a remote?
Mak, I would drop digital all together and stick to analog if I were you. Tension in left upper part of body may be an early sign of cardiac muscle distress.
Guidocorona, you make a valid point. I believe there is much more variability in digital(I'm sensitive to the point where parts of my body tense-up with certain digital stuff-obviously this is not something we should associate with music!). For instance, my friend bought two cd's recently-Led Zepplen 4 and a Beck album. The Led Zepplin cd made me want to listen to the analog album(My cd player is being updated.). The Beck album tensed my upper left side of my body. Is this what I should associate with music? That's the part I don't get.
"I recall a study by RCA Labs in the nacent days of "HIFI" (late 40s, early 50s) in which they found that listeners preferred a mellow sound, and expecially disliked extended high frequenices."
Just more ignored information from so long ago.
and why people still listen to analog despite your personal transition.
I recall a study by RCA Labs in the nacent days of "HIFI" (late 40s, early 50s) in which they found that listeners preferred a mellow sound, and expecially disliked extended high frequenices. Nevertheless, Capitol Records released a boxed series of their Full Dimensional Sound (FDS) LPs which included a booklet about the new technology, and names like Fisher and McIntosh began appearing on shelves of specialty shops.
Except for those boxed sets and the old Westminister Lab recordings, I've given away all my LPs, and never regretted it. I must admit, the apparatus of a turntable and arm do make nice toys, and you can tweek them forever instead of listening to boring music.
Mak, let me say it bluntly, pre 1982 digital is TERRIBLE, unless it is absolutely awful. If you are fixated on recordings prior to that year you should stick to analog vinyl and worry no longer. life's too short for fussing about trivia!
What I'm thinking(and I haven't followed digital stuff), is the Dolby stuff that made 5.1's(and I'm not sure that they did), did some kind of delay in the surround situation. If that would be true, it would not sound correct on two channel, but would on surround. Since I don't currently have my cd player(APL Hi-Fi's Denon 3910), I can't give you more specific info. Sorry. I also need to expand my digital library. I'm a little hesitant here. I know that analog(pre-1982) has value. Can you say the same about digital? Although, I've been given some great advice on cd, here and elsewhere, I find myself spending my funds on things that I believe I shouldn't just to keep my credibility. My cd collection and access to cd is a disgrace! I'm now a subsciber to "Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile"(boy, they cost so little!), and it was the last "Absolute Sound". I will try to narrow it down to you, but you have to admit that they are reading this topic.
The system I heard the too-fast guitar was Alex's of APL Hi-Fi. It was 2 channel. The Eric Clapton cd was maybe made in 1988(or later). I think I only heard one other cd that had what I call digital artifacts(which may not be digital artifacts at all). It was still very listenable. The guitar seemed to suprise me more than anything. Maybe if I had listened to it more than once, my perception would change? Anyhow, I brought it up because in "Absolute Sound" a reviewer mentioned that things that bothered him on two-channel were not a problem on(what I call) surround sound. What about a slight delay making the guitar sound too fast on 2-channel, but making sense on surround?
Mak, are you experiencing the timing problem on every track of every CD, or on just one track of 1 CD? If the effect has a physical origin, you should be able to reproduce it no matter what track of which CD you are playing. The test is very simple: clock any track on a stopwatch. If the final reading is significantly shorter than what's reported on the CD jacket, you may have a transport problem, otherwise the problem is entirely psychosomatic.
You may have a transport problem. I use my Genesis digital lens to ferret out transports with clock problems.
I'm waiting for an affordable PC based tester so I can save results and take my laptop to test systems away from home.
Now if you're talking about the sustain of an electric guitar or decay of say the plucked strings (unplugged).
Surround can help here but I don't want drivel on about something unrelated. So you can describe "too fast" a little more succinctly based on what i've said above.
Which track of which recording, maybe I have it here.
I have to mention here(God forbid) the "Absolute Sound" has two things in its last issue dealing with surround sound(I'm sure this is not the correct term.). One has to do with not auditioning a backlog of cd's. The other had to do with an Outlaw equipment review. I think both relate to what D_edwards has been talking about. I do want to say that Valen is great addition to the "Absolute Sound", in my opinion. Admit it, Guidocorona, you've had some training in the medical field, as I found your terminology to be correct.
Digital is going to get the soul of music the minute you stop analyzing the sound and looking for flaws, and just relax enjoy your favorite artist with a glass of your favorite wine.
Having just checked my references, it is at this point unclear if the mutagenic gonadotropic effect of runaway digital jitter is at all limited to the acoustic domain, or if instead it is generated in the RF domain, and what its effective range may be. IT is interesting to note that, if a vinyl disk were produced from an early digital recording which exhibited runaway digital jitter caused by problems in the recording or mastering equipment, playback of such disk on a purely analog rig would be as deleterious to the listener's integrity as listening to its CD counterpart.
There is likely to be more raw jitter in a car stereo. On the other hand this is also likely to be cancelled by the extremely poor S/N ratio in the car. Furthermore, being the jitter signal in question in the acoustic domain, rather than in the RF domain, placement of the CD's electronics in close proximity to one's gonads is not expected to exacerbate the situation.
You would think that there would be more runaway jitter in a carstereo head unit than an audiophile system. Plus the head unit :(, is closer to the affected area.
My Cdplayer is kept at a safe distance if you know what I mean. :)
Yes, according to a recent study by M. Borzatta and Aloysius Q. Schmaltzenstein Gavronsky, published in the last preprint of Lancet&Dunset, runaway digital jitter can in fact produced significant swelling of the prostate through the formation of pre-cancerous nodules. As the study was based on a very small sample, the team headed by the above researchers is now planning to expand it, and is seeking more volunteers in the audiophile community of the state of California.
Well take all my comments as a collective up to now Dynamic range, surround sound etc. They all contribute.
LP's have technical problems that make them somewhat problematic for surround BUT even they could be enhanced by surround. Atleast the companies who spent all that money developing quadraphonic thought so.
But what DPLII does is remove the nasty edge off the CD which for anyone is an irritant. This glare is the reverberant field that is collapsed on the subject/ stimulus of the reverberent sound, whether it is artifical or captured by mics. Two channel cannot properly release this energy which will cause tension.
On the very same system if I switch from surround to two channel a definite edge and glare present themselves. (I have found tubes make this worse(probably not universally though))on CD players, as most tubes are added to soften the sound, but instead they emphasize the problem by adding more noise to the signal and simply blunting the glare.
"It is the relaxation quotient of music." If the music is meant to be relaxing then yes you should be relaxed. One cannot stretch out and relax to The Crystal Method's Vegas unless one is allowed to become detached from the music. Maybe relaxation and the ability to detach oneself from the recorded performance is what you really mean. Surround will not allow detachment as well as two channel. A tweeter that is a bit gritty is like a stick snapping in the woods you will react to this on a base level.
Where I can find a direct conflict with digital not performing as you describe is the people who produce recordings that are DESIGNED too have a "relaxation quotient" seem ambiguous to the medium it is replayed on and if its digital or not. Its just an observation from googling so I can understand your position better. The obvious touche' would be they don't recommend listening in surround either. :)
"muscle-testing digital" I googled it, but if you can point the most relevant study. It would be helpful. Lot's of things on prostates.
I engage music actively it is why I use very accurate flat response loudspeakers. If "enjoy" is too "relax" and "escape" then ultimately CD+surround does this for me. We are all different, so are physiologies could be at odds. BUT! what is not at odds is the surperiority of surround playing back digital.
Are you a bit of a tinkerer or are your speakers bi-wire capable? We can try an expiriment
D_edwards, you have very interesting ideas. I'm not sure that I can test them out as far as surround sound is concerned(finances, etc.). I do believe that many who read this could comment on it though. I do want to mention something though. It is the relaxation quotient of music. I am absolutely positive that analog has this(pre-1982 lp's). Why do we listen to music? Surely, relaxation is part of it. How well does digital do this? I'm not entirely sure myself, as Alex of APL Hi-Fi has made cd's from turntables that sound no different than the vinyl that it was recorded from. As far as scientific studies goes, have you heard about muscle-testing digital, and how it makes you weaker(just to mention studies)?
D_edwards, you have very interesting ideas. I'm not sure that I can test them out as far as surround sound is concerned(finances, etc.). I do believe that many who read this could comment on it though. I do want to mention something though. It is the relaxation quotient of music. I am absolutely positive that analog has this(pre-1982 lp's). Why do we listen to music? Surely, relaxation is part of it. How well does digital do this? I'm not entirely sure myself, as Alex of APL Hi-Fi has made cd's from turntables that sound no different than the vinyl that it was recorded from.
"I don't understand why you would get rid of music."
2500 records + 6-700Cd's in a growing collection is like 5-6 years of continuous listening 24/7 Its just being practical especially when most of the music I gave or threw away I had little or no real interest in playing especially since records are of secondary quality on my system.
from my perspective it was the practical thing to do.
If you think about it all of LP's shortcomings, poor channel seperation, noise issues, bandwidth issues, need for compression and equalization all are exact opposites of what CD performance is. The lack of channel seperation plays right into only having two front speakers even if its recorded onto Cd! Because a 24bit Cd has waaaaaay more resolution than some tired record and the CD is capable of an excellent copy of the LP, try to do it the other way around! There are obstacles like the level of technical knowledge in the average audiophile. Many audiophles have a great deal of experience but have framed this into a religious frame work not a technical framework. So facts and trends are obscured by pet theories and fashionable trends not facts.
In your case your time windows have a slight raggedness in the lower treble (which I'm sure you can hear time to time on records) because the tweeter is asked to do a little much. With a CD this can be considerably worse due to the nature of the source. Hardly the "sound" of a CD. I have a $1200 pair of speakers that do not have this problem, so it is not necessarily a cost issue, it is a design issue.
The fact is many many speakers are not "digital ready" even though that was a laughable phrase for most when it was a marketing phrase in the 80's. Harsh high and lack of control on transients play into making CD less musical. Tubes and LP's blur the edges making it easier for equipment to track.
The soul of the music is incrementally easier to reach the less "noise" your system makes and the "louder" you can play the music without room acoustics and equipment deficiencies creeping in to interfere. There has been studies on this... It is science that allows us to repeat the conditions, which is why audiophile companies don't want you to know the truth about it.
I'm kind of limited on my speakers. I have to get decent off-axis response for my roommate. I have the original DCM Time-Windows. Finances are tight right now, but any suggestions are welcome. D-edwards, I don't understand why you would get rid of music. Analog(pre-1982 albums), even if lacking complete accuracy will get you off on music. There is no question in my mind about that. I understand that it takes tweaking, and people were not forthcoming in the tweaks necessary. You have to take each parameter of a turntable set-up and listen until you hear what it does. You use the objective parameters as a guideline. I am actually a horn-guy as far as speakers go. But boy, the off-axis response, unless you are rich, is terrible. I have to tell you guys this. Alex of APL Hi-Fi(who is modifying my Denon 3910 cd player) played a cd recorded from turntables, and his recording from a Gyrodec(with his AC Power for the motor and his homemade phono preamp) killed a Rockport with Van der Zeal(?, $12,000)preamp.
Don't bother paul, MRT is just unleashing a bunch of mechanical froggies in the audiopond. He just enjoys the spectacle of the audiocarps frantically chasing after all those useless toys. (Chuckles!)
"I have to mention that I believe that you need to have analog(pre-1982) to enter this debate."
I have 2500+ records, I'd have 7,500 but I gave or threw 5000 away a few years back. I have setup over 200 analog systems and have owned excellent analog rigs. (SOTA, Star Saphire, Saphire, Cosmos, VPI HW-19IV, ET2, SME, Premiere, Wheaton, Grado, Micro Benz, Monster, Sumiko, Clear Audio, Roksan, EAR, Audio Research, Audible Illusions, Mod Squad, Motif Linn, Van den hul, Ortofon, Technics.
I know exactly what you're talking about, and so do I. So does Harvard University School of Medicine and Bell Labs.
I still don't know what speakers you are using. Very important. As important as my ownership of analog from pre-1982.
Hopefully my resume measures up, to qualify me for this continuing debate.
+ of course many of them are from before 1982. And all of my Cd's are from after 1983. :)
PS: On the Cd transport comment, on a whole there were more choices for High End transports a missing nuance to my comment and the basis. Why is there no serious competition for the VRDS? This is a problem don't you think? Thanks for the correction
D_Edwards, thank you very much for your input. I believe that people(including myself) need to re-read what you just said. Guidocorona, you have very good points. I have to mention that I believe that you need to have analog(pre-1982) to enter this debate.
Plato, I was thinking about it, and I believe we may have forgotton one very important class of factors. . . that is the cultural macro and micro environments for all the stages listed before. Which may perhaps explain why the classical music of Southern Laos, of Tibet, of the Sarmatic Tuvan region, and of relatively nearby Croatia do not have much emotional impact on me. On these I would have personally to add much of popular music from both sides of the Atlantic pond.
You make a good point and I mostly agree with what you said. I think the "soul" of the music results from a good collaboration or synergy between the composer and the artist. And if the recording engineer and the technology he employs can preserve this "soul," and the playback system can pass it with a minimum of distortion and alteration then the "soul" of the music is finally communicated to the music system listener.
mr g, you make a lot of statements but you provide no evidence for them. just because you are a composer, that doesn't excuse you from being prepared to backup your position.
>>You are overlooking the Teac Esoteric VRDS transport. The manufacturing on this unit is way ahead of what Pioneer were doing with the Stable Platter.<<
Agreed. The Esoteric transport is the standard by which all others should be measured. This is indisputable.
mr g, what evidence do you have that there is soul in a composition ? it is an opinion based upon your experience of listening to music. it is not knowledge. let's not get too presumptious.
let's not get too carried away with an opinion. it is based purely on experience which does not yeild knowledge.
it may be an "educated" opinion, an "expert" opinion, but as an opinion it is neither true nor false. tha truth or falsity of an opinion cannot be ascertained.
a soul may be a part of ahuman being, spiritually speaking, but music having a soul, i think not--but thats just an opinion.
Sorry, wrong again. The soul starts in the composer. If the composer does not commit the right notes to the score, no amount of performing skill and passion, no amount of artsy recording engineering, no amount of fanciful analog or digital reproduction, no amount of angst, passion or hyperactive neurotransmitters in the listener are going to make an Iot of difference. . . In other words, the elusive 'soul' of music lives in the chain of artistic, technical and emotional causality.
The soul is in the artist's performance. Whether a stereo system can convey it or not, specifically, whether or not the digital format is capable of preserving the soul of the original performance is the question here. My feeling, from listening, is that it can.
And whether or not a specific individual is capable of grasping the "soul" of a particular artist's performance is yet another matter.
Way way back in this thread you were told that digital was not compatible with two channel playback. As you have found even stuffing tubes (lol) in a Cd player can't over come the fact you only have two speakers. I know how this topic rubs audiophiles the wrong way, but to say "digital" is lacking when you haven't even tried to tap the real strenght of its abilities then your comments have an asterisk attached. And I am talking about stereo redbook Cd's
*when listening to digital on a two channel system, analog appears to better it.
Did you ever think that LP's enjoy homefield advantage on a two channel systems? as they were developed together at the same time over 5 decades?
Why is home theater so popular? surround sound of course! Now do you really think if audiophiles put their money where their mouth was and supported digital (better sound) and the surround companies who matter that it would be a matter of 6 months a year before improved multi-channel music systems would begin to appear for the music enthusiast!
I find that most audio equipment designers are clueless when it comes to the potential of surround. Most just slap the chips in from Dolby, Cirrus and car stereo EQ DSP's and call that a processor.
Think about how far back in the stone age audiophiles are when they are embracing amplifiers that have circuits that were used to send morse code from ship to ship in 1917! Have systems with no room correction or cannot adapt to the soundstage of an orchestra than to a soloist....these nuances left homogenized by room acoustics and the limitations of the basic pair of loudspeaker.
Funny thing is you never mentioned what speakers you have, which is likely a the source of yourpercieved "problems". It has been my direct experience that the high frequency problem likely exists in the speakers not the cd player.
New Records are not $3 a pop, used records are $3 a pop. So are used CD's $3-$5. Why is there a double standard applied? I'll tell you why, because any jr. high shop class can make a working turntable, its not that hard.
It takes a serious company with real tooling capacity to make a Cd transport. I've never seen a DIY Cd transport. Fear of the unknown, how many audiophiles are control freaks,,,lots its part of the personality.
IMO, the best CD transport were made in the early to mid nineties, they were overbuilt, pioneer stable platter. etc.
DVD transports are built so marginally its no wonder we still have significant jitter and data loss problems. But since we don't "see" the transport we likely don't perceive its part of the problem....so we fix what we can see...new cables or we buy a new more expensive transport when the one we had was simply out of specification.
Having watched my grandfather (a true audiophile) and learning from him, todays audio enthusiast is a Consumer not a participant of the hobby. Knowledge is replaced by belief. Did jesus walk on water or did he walk across a reflection on the sand? What do you believe?
If a $20,000 preamplifier doesn't come with the right power cord, is the designer competent? What do you believe?
The right answer will never be a concensus as opinions represent beliefs. In the face of facts, there can be no opinion.
You know Guidocorona that I won't let it rest. I have to admit using Alex of APL Hi-Fi's modified Denon 3910 and the Jerry Garcia's band's "After Midnight" to move my speakers a little, that it sounds great! To those audiphiles that use only one source, I think that you are crazy and not qualified to comment on this situation(how does that help turntable sales?). Have you guys read what was used in the high-end rooms in Vegas? The fact(I haven't used SACD yet.) is that digital has problems in the highs. I want to boost analog in two ways. One is the relaxation that it provides(and those that use both, feel free to comment). The second is the cost. A Rega Planar(with straight tonearm) is maybe $400? With records at $3 a pop(and if you stick with 1981 or earlier albums), analog is the price leader. For those interested in cheap digital, I would suggest you investigate the Zhalou(mentioned in Head-FI). Rather than ridicule my "playing in your head" comment, I suggest you take it seriously, and when you come to the same conclusion that I did, to ask why? It might be very instuctive.
Sorry Mak the analog music in your head bothers you. Perhaps you should try the kind that plays in my head. . . it is generated completely synaptically and it is truly no bother.
First off, I've never gotten-off on music more than hearing Alex's set-up at his house. I am,also, very grateful that I have an instrument to hear recordings made after 1981(I have, but rarely listen to, lp's made after that.). Alex also has given me a direct to cd recording from an analog lp, that he made. I've been burning in his cd player, also. Eventually, I will compare. Two things bother me, though. One-the music that plays through my head is generally analog. People don't realize what this means. I know that I don't(yet). Two-before modification, my cd player is Class C at stereophile, so cost of music in the home is my other problem. You can get a Rega Planar(or maybe a Music Hall)turntable and get one-dollar albums that, for sure, will bring music into the home. I have an obligation(unlike the audio press) to let the financially-challenged know that.
my experience at the last 12 CES shows and several stereophile shows as well as numerous visits to audio buddies tells me that most stereo systems sound lousy.
after listening to live music, i don't want to listen to recorded music for a while.
the closest thing to "soul" was listening to 4 original quads with a quad amp and analog.
the second closest was listening to 4 original quad speakers with a low powered tube amp with a decent cd player.
the point is that with original quads, it's hard not to have soul, even with digital.
one other point, get some mellow sounding cables with digital and there is a better chance of having "soul"
I forgot to mention the criteria used to evaluate music. It is how much you get off on it(I have other ideas, such as what plays through your head. but these are experimental.).
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.
