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.
01-03-06: Mmakshak The thing is, Wc65mustang, is that there have been so many advances in cable-just in the last 4-5 years, that I can assure you that the Oritek X-2 will outperform almost all of the top-ten interconnects of all time
Just over a week ago, you were touting the X-2 as one of the top ten IC's of all time, and now you claim not to have heard the best. Furthermore, today's post would have us believe that you have not even heard the X-2's at all:
Yes, I consider him a friend. He emailed me and said if you want your PRAT, here it is. He meant the X-2's.
Finally, this thread in which you disparage digital playback turns out to be primarily due to the sound of car stereos? And CD players from 1988 and earlier? As I said before, this discussion is over. You make-a no sense, and the horoscope comment is only deepening my confusion.
Tvad, I want to apologize to you. I believe my last post short-shifted you. You have very interesting things to say. It's just, with me, sometimes, it triggers an inappropriate response. I would guess that you are a Scorpio, but I've lately struck-out in that area. I actually had retired Oritek X-1's, in favor or Elf Audio's ccc interconnects, and told Ori about that. Yes, I consider him a friend. He emailed me and said if you want your PRAT, here it is. He meant the X-2's. Yes, I'm a shrill for the masses that want, or need, music in the home. If you look at my moniker on Audio Circles, you would understand where I'm coming from. I'm not saying that it is superior, since I haven't heard the best. I hope to hear close to the best soon. I just have an obligation to say the truth, in terms of what's affordable to the average guy. I stand by what I said.
Yes, actually it's been more than 15 posts. I want to point out Oneobgyn's post on Audiogon about his system. I couldn't get it here, so maybe it requires looking up. I'm suprised by the cost of his Wilson X-2's, which are over $100,000. Anyhow, I liken Ori's X-2's to Koetsu cartridges, in that they convey something about music that escapes most components. I want to introduce another subject here. I know that Audiogon is about high-end, but I'm wondering if there is anything that can be done about car stereo's cd players. This is mainly where I hear the hardness that I speak of. Would something like Mapleshade's reveal and another thing, plus iconoclast do something to alleviate that?
Digital has an edge that has not been overcome yet. It's hard to explain, but as much as SACD and DVD-A have improved on resolution, that digital edge is still there. When I put an LP on, it's a whole nother world.
For those that enjoy digital and don't hear this, then you get to listen the more convenient media and enjoy it without all of the little inconveniences. I still enjoy digital (redbook and SACD), but analog has a transparency and lushness that I haven't heard with digital.
"Digital is very linear and its dynamic range is and can be disconcerting to listeners." D_edwards, you hit the nail on the head for me. Maybe that is what causes my tension when listening to cd? BTW, I might have an opportunity to hear a super high-end system built around digital soon. He posted his system on audiogon. He goes by Oneobgyn.
I want to apologize to Lkdog. I never get the motives of people right, and there were hidden motives in my asking the question. First, I heard a cd by Connie Dover,"Last Night by the River" at Ori's, of Oritek Audio, house that was listenable to me. This interested me a little in cd, since I'm stuck with 1981 or earlier albums. Second, I wanted to point out to the youngsters that analog can be a cheap way to enjoy music. Third, I actually was hoping to discuss ways to make cd more enjoyable. I certainly don't want to be responsible for someone who is an audiophile and a therapist, which is very unique, to withhold his insight on things.
The Dirt Late Model analogy about the asphalt,vs the dirt is not a matter of digital vs analog. The 358 cu inches is carburators vs fuel injection would be right.The dirt vs asphalt ....your room aka.. walls of drywall vs all carpet all round etc...ABSORPTION WILL SLOW YOUR SOUND .
"I get tense listening to cd. I know that many people don't, so I'm not sure that their advice might apply to me."
Something is incompatible with digital in your system, fact is a system designed around analog will likely not sound good playing digital and your tenision with digital is likely more a reflection of your equipment's capability than your tastes and sensibilities. Please do not read that you have poor equipment, a Dirt Late Model is not the same as one made for asphalt. Though they are both very fast 358 cu inch cars and run on 1/2 mile circuits one is better on one surface than the other. Your audio system will likely be the same way.
Digital is very linear and its dynamic range is and can be disconcerting to listeners
Analog, compressed (RIAA), EQ, very non linear and is easier to listen too, highs are not linear and for equipment to playback. So the stress levels are down on all parts.
My system is designed around digital, I make compromises and adjustments on preamp and cartridge selection to adjust my analog accordingly to a system that will not flatter it. You may need to do the same (in reverse).
Don't get mad at me for posting this. Although I believe that I should do research in the area of the best cd players for the money, I have a problem. In many cases, I get tense listening to cd. I know that many people don't, so I'm not sure that their advice might apply to me. I have heard that tubes might help this. There is another problem. Sometimes digital doesn't make sense to me-especially with high-end players. With cheaper systems, cd can sometimes sound too hard for me. Anyhow, just some thoughts. Thanks Tvad.
Tvad, I appreciate your heads-up about my writings. I can see it from your 12-step comments. I may deviate a little bit from the main subject from now on, but I can see that it is harder to follow what I'm saying when I use parenthesis.
Isn't audio just a suspension of belief(or is that disbelief)? Whatever does this provides an escape from our day-to-day life. Analog(for me)does this and(this opens up a pandora's box) also changes the brainwaves. I am interested in digital doing this(I'm limited to 1981 and earlier albums.). I just need to know what(equipment?) is necessary.
bilbo- thanks for supplying your note of commonsense sanity. I, too, have the Bill Evans recording. Just plain fine music. I also have the re-released "Everbody Digs Bill Evans"; another winner. Music with soul.
I recently purchased the Bill Evans Trio's "Waltz for Debbie" on CD. It has to be one of the best live recordings of that famous trio I have heard. It was recorded live at the Village Vanguard, and you hear people coughing, glasses clinking, and chatting in the background. But you can also hear the hush of the crowd when an amazing passage is being played. I traveled with that CD. I didn’t worry about imaging, or my Thiel's harsh high end, or tight bass. I just dug Bill Evans emotion on the piano, Lafaro's brilliant conversations on the bass, Motian's subtle brush work. So I do think music has a soul. That recording moved me.
Listeners have soul too. As a jazz fan, I imagined myself at the VV, drink in one hand, babe in the other, diggin' The Trio. In reality, my would-be date would probably have been wishing we were at a Pretenders show the whole time. Point is...we all relate better to what we love. I love that recording, regardless of the vinyl pops, or digital info voids. That format allowed me to stay in the chair for an hour, uninterrupted, and enjoy.
Turn down the lights, get your favorite libation, pick a desert island recording, and dive in. All the techy garbage is just the messenger. Don’t kill the messenger, listen to the message.
And I wrote pooring instead of pouring on purpose, for the generically branded form of Brilliant little Pebbles being readily available for only penneys per pound at any self-respecting rock show, will perform their higher-dimensional magic for even the stingiest of audiophiles.
It was actually the spectrum of a Dover Sole, which I grokked after irradiating it with 4th dimensional subtle frequencies emanating from my Machina Dinamica radionic clock. Unfortunately I found the darn sole not to have a soul, but only shreds of one. . . bunch of little spectra [plural of the latin word spectrum (2nd declination, neutrall)] floating around in little bottles of Brilliant Pebbles, lost in the atomic effect engendered by all those subtle vibes pooring forth from all those carefully machined precious and semi-precious stones. . . oh what a culinary musically moving delight! I am crying pan-galactic tears just thinking about the beloved flounder. . . Ah, if only Gunther Grass were here, I am sure he could make something of this oh most arch-typical of Ur-fish!
I once read a post on another thread where the listener (an audiophile) was moved to tears listening to his ordinary radio in the kitchen when one of his favourite classical piece was being played.
I wonder if it was the soul in the radio or it was the listeners soul which was moved by that piece in the given circumstances he was in.
I just want to correct the statement that rumble is in the same spectra(is that a word?) as ticks and pops. I believe ticks and pops are way up in the khz, but also that's where extra-musical stuff is.
Folks, the soul of music is in the totality of the musical instantiation--composition, performance, recording, reproduction--not merely in the medium, regardless of format.Listen to the Gloria in J. S. Bach's Magnificat in D Major BWV 243 conducted by John Eliot Gardiner and released on CD in distant 1983. Perhaps technologically not the most up to date recording. . . but does it ever have soul? Overwhelmingly so! To claim that the very presence or abscence of pops/clicks, grooves/pits, valves/transistors, mono/stereo/multichannel reproduction, grand or modest sound, in any shape or form, solely determine whether music is capable of affecting our lives or not, is to trivialize the entire musical experience, which instead, because of its very rich and complex nature, transcends technology.
This is a tough question and one that probably is too vague "soul of music" I mean beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No digital has sounded as transparent as vinyl to me, but others mayb prefer digital.
I have found that good digital (particularly Hi-Rez, but also some CDs) has gotten to the point where, in my system, the soul of the music gets to me from the performance and the composer rather than the medium it's played on. It took a long time for digital to get to that point--analog has been there for a while.
My ticks and pops submission brings me to a previous point and inquiry. I would suggest that when listening to analog, one listens to the music(and not the ticks and pops). That is how one listens to analog. I, therefore, want to repeat the question,"is there a way to listen to digital?". My Linn Kan's comments were made for the same reason. When one listens to the Kan's, in terms of conveying the beat, they make sense.
I don't know if I can articulate this properly. I was playing "Crosby-Nash(a platinum-plus lp), and I asked my brother where the click and pops were. Then I heard some. When I focused on them, it was very disturbing. After thinking about that, one idea came to mind. What if all the non-musical artifacts(maybe rumble,too-anything that didn't have anything to do with the musical message)were separated out in a sense. In other words, when listening to ticks and pops, one also was listening to all(or a lot of)the non-music stuff. That could explain why the ticks and pops drive people crazy.
D edwards: I've been using 5.1 surround for the last two months (for the first time) and I totally agree that surround kicks two-channel butt (at least with lower priced equipment in a small room). It's similar to adding a good subwoofer to an already good system -really puts meat on the musical bones.
Digital is too good for two channel playback, it reveals the short comings of not having a proper speaker setup. Two channel isn't very good now that we have pushed the envelope of source performance this far which is why some of the best LP playback equipment begins to sound thin and less "musical" when improved.
I will not argue if you only have a two channel system that LP's maybe the best source for music. Their technical weaknesses actually benefitting the two channel arrangement.
Its been known for a very long time that surround provides a more musically involving experience (60-70 years). The audiophile consensus is that two good speakers is better than 5 mediocre ones and a subwoofer, my experience is too the contrary, just fyi.
Analog specific companies have mastered the art of THD, compression and EQ, and "better" is not a word that can be used to measure the technical performance but simply the subjective sound.
Your car stereo experience is only hinting at the huge gap between 2 channel and multichannel playback for digital sources, don't ignore it. It leads a long way to where you want to go
As Onhwy61 and others directly and indirectly have indicated, without added distortion two channel is a step down in sound, requiring compression and harmonic distortion to make it sound meaningful and full. I have clients who have their noses pressed up against this very problem...more distortion or more channels? Because that is exactly the choice you have if you want to play digital recordings and "feel" it.
To address the typical responses to a post like this let me address two irratatingly thoughtless comments used as a rebuttle to such comments.
1. for the two ears, two channels comments---my answer is stop being a simpleton
2. for the mixed to be two channel crowd, name one commonly used microphone with a 180 degree pickup pattern? Its all I ask. Answer this one and then I'll consider your rebuttle as validated.
Well you'll never know until you try. There must be some reason why so many people (including myself) are raving about their Naims, Wadias, Carys and Ayres. I've heard a number of lower priced CD players and you're right. They do all sound the same. The higher end ones are another league altogether.
You make a good point and are quite correct about my pretty ordinary source components...I stand corrected. I have not made direct comparisons with anything approaching the $2000+ range (a high quality source). So in all fairness, my remarks reflect an opinion about high end digital sound based on my observations of a variety of products from low to mid tier that sound alike.
Since I do not find audibly distinguishable differences between these ordinary to mid tier DAC's (despite using three very different types of DAC), I am naturally a bit skeptical to pay big prices for even better quality components. ( I understand that the higher priced components will definitely be better quality/specification...but my concern is that, given the already good quality of even low to mid tier digital sources, I simply won't be able to hear the improvement of a high end digital source because the low and mid tier digital is already good enough for me...)
Shadorne I've taken the time to research the components you list, and as you say, they are pretty ordinary. The processors described in the reviews on the Anthem site are nothing to write home about. You appear to have drawn your conclusions without actually ever trying a high end two channel CD playback system. You really should make the effort.
I just want to mention(again) that in a properly setup analog system, clicks and pops are separated from the music(i.e., when listening to the music, you won't hear{or it won't intrude) the pops and clicks. Maybe we need some turntable designers to say something here(but don't worry, it's true in my system, and I'm sure, many others.).
I have found that one advantage of Digital is that it is relatively inexpensive to get high league sound. I, for one, can confirm that I am unable to hear audible benefits of a higher quality CD player or DAC converter.
Surprised you feel that way Shadorne. I guess the only thing I can suggest is that you try a Wadia, Ayre, Cary or the like and see if our feelings change. I know mine did.
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.
