|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1466 Registered: Nov-05 | Interesting article. I posted this on the phono also. A good plug for the Apollo - and well okay, vinyl as well :-) http://www.audioenz.co.nz/2007/vinyl_digital.shtml |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 8238 Registered: Dec-04 | Thanks, MR. Perfected just before obsolescence. Ya don't know what ya got till it's gone? |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 2302 Registered: Sep-04 | Yes, interesting article. He has the same CD player as me and the same basic record deck, although we have different arms/cartridges. I disagree that CD will vanish. I have a feeling it will contionue and become what vinyl has become - that somewhat niche market product that is the preserve of anachronists. I find it interesting that he omitted to say the most tempting thing - that his curtrent player, the CDX2, can be improved by adding an external power supply, and that this can either be the power supply of the next player up (the CDS3) or, indeed, the supply of the top CD555. The performance of his player is improved significantly and this is one of the things about his comparison to the BMW325i. Sure you can buy a BMW325i for the price of a CD555, but can you start by buying a Mini, bolting on the engine from the 325i and then swapping the chassis later for the 325i, selling the Mini on as unmodified? I don't think so - but that's what you can do with the Naim CD player. You can buy the CDX2, add the XPS2 or CD555PS depending on which CD player you're aiming for and finally you can add the CDS3 or CD555 head unit and sell on your CDX2. Can't do that with a car! I listen to a CD555 every week in the shop (lucky me!) and it is a truly wonderful piece of kit. Admittedly it has an evil competitor at the moment called the Chord Electronics red reference. Similarly priced (well, within 10%), the new contender takes a very different approach to music-making than the CD555. Both are fabulous on the right material and each trounces the other on some material, which just goes to show that there is no one true solution, yet! Regards, Frank. |
|
New member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 10 Registered: Jul-07 | I realize what I am about to say is very inflammatory and has been fought on audio forums since the emergence of CDs. But I am asking to be educated... What is it in vinyl that attracts audiophiles? I just do not understand why or how someone can say that vinyl sounds better than CD. My understanding is that LPs and analog recordings by the nature of their creation are lossy. A Tape running across a head creates noise, therefore resulting in data loss. Digital recordings do not suffer from mechanical noise creation, therefore capture data in a lossless format, producing what one would assume (and I believe) an superior reproduction of the musical experience. |
|
Silver Member Username: KevincorrFairbanks, Alaska Usa Post Number: 137 Registered: Jul-07 | "...What is it in vinyl that attracts audiophiles?..." Having 3,000 albums! I know that is not what you meant. I think someone is about to provide you with a link to the discussion. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1468 Registered: Nov-05 | I often wonder the same thing John. However, only having a low end turntable years ago I can only go by the comments made here by those with the expertise of knowing what makes good music. I have toyed with the idea of getting a reasonable t/t but with the scarcity of vinyl, I am loath to make the outlay. Now, of course I regret immensely that I gave my record collection away. I can also understand the emotional connection to the 'LP' however, I think I will stick to digital now that I know how good it can be and put my money into collecting cd's before they go the way of the dinosaur. But who knows - anything is possible. Anyhow, I agree with Frank - all current formats (except maybe DVD-A) will be around for some time if only for a niche market. Or until there are no more baby-boomers left. Of course BluRay/HDDVD may produce some interesting offerings in the future. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 11052 Registered: May-04 | . Let's begin by stating that analog is additive and digital is subtractive. Analog has no practical frequency limit and it's practical dynamic range has been shown to be greater than CD. If very good analog tape were still available (not cassette), the differences in frequency response and dynamics would be even more pronounced. Digital is subtractive in its frequency response and dynamics. While higher resolution formats in digital offer greater promise for both areas (just not for sales), Redbook CD was created at a time when most of use, if we owned a "computer", were working in DOS, playing Pong in black and white and thought our Atari 400 was the bee's knees. A 16 bit CD typically translates to 12 bit at the outputs. The filters required to cut off frequency response above 20kHz, so as not to beat against the too low 44.1kHz sampling rate, will cause additive problems lower in the frequency range (aliasing) and rob most music of its life. At 20kHz a Redbook CD has two chances to get the signal read correctly. Miss one and error correction fills in what wasn't retrieved from the disc. Analog has no such limitations. I hope you're not relying on specs to discern which component does a better job at their intended task. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 217 Registered: Jun-07 | as Jan has already given you the technical side of the question. I can honestly say IMO, from what I have heard from my own ears, that LP destroys cd for sound quality. There is just no depth to digital music, it is so compressed. As artists today are sticking more and more into one cd, more compressed it gets, a crappier it sounds. I was reading in May edition of home theater mag, that CD is officially the worse sounding format of all time. Compared to LP and tape and such. They say that 10 years ago CD's were roughly 8 percent better, in sound quality then they are now. Just thought I would add my two cents. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 11 Registered: Jul-07 | First off, I am guided by two things, My ears first and foremost and secondly a strong understanding of the engineering of the audio equipment, technology and physics. Now some questions: 1. Can you clarify what you mean by analog being additive and digital being subtractive? For subtractive, do you mean that due to the technical limitation of CD technology filtering reduces all data above 20kHz? Or do you mean that Error correction mechanisms in digital crop data? I am lost on the idea of additive. Unless of course you mean that analog has no frequency limit. Just as a statement, all of the studies I have seen, (quick Google search) show that human hearing is limited to 10HZ - 20Khz. Would this not mean that any signal above 20Khz is lost anyway? Or do we "audiophiles" have more highly developed hearing, that allows us to appreciate the higher frequencies? 2. What do you mean by: At 20kHz a Redbook CD has two chances to get the signal read correctly. Miss one and error correction fills in what wasn't retrieved from the disc. If I understand Reed-Solomon error correction the key component is the sample rate, Increase the sample rate and we increase the accuracy of the stream. Improve the sample rate, you improve overall sound quality. Finally I just wanted to say that this is exactly what I am looking for, past discussions on this topic have always been WAY too subjective for my liking. "It just sounds better cause it is warmer" I just have never got that. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2044 Registered: May-05 | The Vinyl Anachronist is always an interesting read. Thanks MR. John, All personal opinions - Why vinyl over CD? Very simply, vinyl sounds better. It is a lossy format in the sense you describe it. It has its mechanical noises as you mention. CD are compressed. There isn't a transport out there that'll read every bit of a CD correctly every time. There isn't a clocking mechanism that'll time every bit correctly. Any error-correction built into a CD player is guessing. I read somewhere (can't recall where) that it is mathmaticaly impossible for a CD player to reproduce a single track, let alone an entire CD the same exact way twice. The explanation was over my head, but the arguement was based on the inability to read every bit correctly everytime, combined with voltage fluctuations in the DAC and clocking mechanism that effect the end product. The only way CD isn't a lossy medium is that nothing physicall touches the disc when its played, and therefore doesn't wear down. But, CDs scratch. Every scratch can cause a little bit of information to be lost. They also get dirty, causing further loss. "Perfect sound forever," as Sony described it when they first released the technology, is a bit absurd. As far as I know, every medium has some compression to it, therefore loss. From what I understand, open reel tape (not the standard cassette) has the least compression, followed by vinyl. CD has significantly more compression than vinyl. Maybe not in the sense of overall bandwidth, but pure amount of information. I don't have any scientific numbers, nor can I point to any studies absolutely proving any of this. I've gathered this information from a bunch of different places at different times. In a good system, these are the differences to my ears - Vinyl sounds bigger. It isn't louder. It doesn't shatter the audible bandwidth. Music just sounds fuller, like there's more music coming out of the speakers. Maybe a more accurate way to describe it is more musical weight? Although, I've heard that description used in a different sense, so its not the exact description I'm looking for. A more powerful presence may be a better description. There's a better sense of focus within imaging. Instruments and voices seem more realistically sized and life like. They have more space around them, yet the overall soundstage isn't necessarily bigger. Voices and instruments sound more natural. They also seem to time better. This may sound absurd due to the measurably higher wow and flutter of a turntable. Then again, you don't have as many missing and mistimed bits that need to be put back together almost instantly. All of these combine for a more emotional reproduction. Well, for me at least. It just sounds right. Vinyl has a soul. There are things that a dirt cheap turntable can do that the most expensive CD players can't. My Pro-Ject Xpression with its cheap stock cartridge outperforms my Rega Apollo in a lot of ways. Overall I think my Apollo is better, but not in every way. I'm demoing a few new cartridges tomorrow, and I'm pretty confident that the new cartridge on my will deck will beat the Apollo hands down. Keep in mind. the stock Xpression costs about half the price of the Apollo. Not all of this is due to production and recording quality. I have a few titles on CD and LP that are pressed from the same digital re-masters. Most notably some Black Sabbath re-releases. They did a CD box set of all their original albums, and then released them on vinyl. The gap between them is narrower than most others, but no one thats heard them in my house thought the CDs sounded better in any way. Keep in ind that these people aren't audiohiles. Most of them didn't think LPs ot turntables were even made anymore. I think the only reason why vinyl died out was convenience. You can't buy blank LPs and record onto them. You can't play them in your car, while you jog, etc. You can't rewind and fast forward accurately. You don't get a remote control. Then there's cleaning, static electricity, scratching, warping, isloation, new styli every few years, and so on. The cataolg of titles available isn't on the same level as CDs are. Its all a big hassle if thats the only way it viewed. My best advice is to go to a dealer who has some turntables on display and listen to a few albums. If you can, track down a Rega dealer. Its the only way I know of showing you what vinyl is all about. I had a completely unrelated conversation with my father yesterday. He's a foreign car mechanic and also buys and sell cars. He's selling a BMW 540 with a manual transmission. The car's aboit 5 years old, in mint condition, and has very low miles (a low milage BMW? Don't see those very often). He can't get rid of it. 8 or so years ago, no one wanted an automatic BMW. It went against the performance aspect of owning a BMW. I said "I thought BMW drivers want manual transmission." He replied "Not anymore." Why does no one want a manual BMW now? Too much of a hassle. That last bit of performance isn't worth it. A few people came to see the car and told him they weren't interested because they couldn't drive it. My father offered to teach them for free. One guy replied "Its too much work." If you haven't driven a BMW with a manual transmission, you have no idea what this means. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SkeeterheadPost Number: 94 Registered: Jul-07 | People love vinyl for different reasons-some better than others. Some grew up on it and are unable to shake it. Others are philosophically opposed to all things digital. Still others are nostalgic and long for a less complicated era. I enjoy both vinyl and cd. For me, it's a question of what gets me closer to the real performance and that varies based on many factors: the quality of the original recording and its subsequent mastering, its transcirption to the digital format, the noise level of the vinyl, etc. My problem is with those individuals who worship at either alter: those who say that all CDs suck and can't compare with vinyl and those who say all vinyl recordings are inherently inferior to the digital counterpart. I have heard poor vinyl and great vinyl and poor CDs and great CDs. Don't let the extremists on either end influence you. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 12 Registered: Jul-07 | I like that approach Dennis. I am not Anti Vinyl by any means. I am trying to see if there a value to adding vinyl to my collection and to the numerous subjective claims that Vinyl is better. Typically I see these claims coming from people who do not share my passion for Music, and are only speaking "off the cuff" or "out of their azz" The technical discussion here goes some way to clarifying this issue. As does that fact that I have a number of older jazz CD orginially recorded to tape that are far superior more some of my recent DDD recordings. I am still a little skeptical that a vinyl copy can beat an identical CD copy but will test that for myself. I am heading to Alternative Audio tomorrow to listen to the Rega Apollo and I understand they are a major distributor for 180 gram vinyl. I will test drive the vinyl for myself. |
|
Silver Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 218 Registered: Jun-07 | John- make sure you let us know what you think of the Rega. Cheers. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 11054 Registered: May-04 | . "Can you clarify what you mean by analog being additive and digital being subtractive? For subtractive, do you mean that due to the technical limitation of CD technology filtering reduces all data above 20kHz?" Data is not "reduced", it is eliminated. Digital is bandwidth limited. The filters employed to achieve this theoretical "brickwall" filter will create signals at lower frequencies (aliasing) which are more harmonically destructive than would be the IM distortions of analog. Aliasing creates signals which are beat against the sampling frequency and therefore have no natural harmonic relationship to the original signal frequency. This is one reason for the metalic sound of some digital processing. * "Or do you mean that Error correction mechanisms in digital crop data?" I'm unaware for the ability of error correction to "crop" data. Error correction is used to "create" (as in, "IT'S ALIVE!!!!!") or interpolate data where none existed before. Error correction has been given a bad reputation based on its over reliance by manufacturers trying to overcome some of digital's shortcomings. The public's desire for convenience and vast storage have held sway over the desire for or knowledge of accuracy. * "I am lost on the idea of additive. Unless of course you mean that analog has no frequency limit." Analog has a frequency limit. It is simply unclear where that limit exists. As analog playback has improved over time, the ability to retrieve smaller bits of information from the analog storage media has increased. But, in general, you are correct, analog has no arbitrary cut off frequency as found in Redbook digital. By its nature, analog could be considered to have infinite frequency response. * "Just as a statement, all of the studies I have seen, (quick Google search) show that human hearing is limited to 10HZ - 20Khz. Would this not mean that any signal above 20Khz is lost anyway?" You obviously didn't do a search beyond the most basic information. Here we run into the essential problem of digital, garbage in = garbage out. If you didn't phrase your search in such a manner as to allow for more information, you will not retrieve more information and the results will be corrupted and inadequate. The same is true for CD playback. If the information is missing on the input side, the interpolation of the data provided will be corrupted by the inadequacy of the deficient information. In short, we respond to frequencies and levels well beyond our ability to hear. Responding to and hearing are tied to together but are not identical. * "Or do we "audiophiles" have more highly developed hearing, that allows us to appreciate the higher frequencies?" No, our ancestors developed this hearing/response for us in order to survive. It is our natural ability to respond to input that is at work here. Nothing to do with audiophile mumbo-jumbo or arrogance. * "What do you mean by: At 20kHz a Redbook CD has two chances to get the signal read correctly. Miss one and error correction fills in what wasn't retrieved from the disc." I mean this is the function of error correction. At a sampling frequency of 44.1kHz, the reading pick up device has only two bits of information it can possibly retrieve at 20kHz. Just as there are no perfectly flat records, there are no perfectly centered CD's. Most laser assemblies cannot react with sufficient speed to follow the stream of information at high frequencies, so error correction takes over for missing data. Servos on the laser assembly will correct for mistracking but the basic problems with servos remain. Something must go wrong before a servo can make a correction. Often that correction occurs after the error is long past and the correction then over compensates which in turn creates new errors. Which are corrected and the problem feeds upon itself. You can compare this to the servos which control many linear tracking tonearms on the analog side. While doing an adequate job in theory, in practice the mechanism is never truly correct. If you are sensitive to the sorts of errors these meachanisms create, they will be a constant source of irritation. * "If I understand Reed-Solomon error correction the key component is the sample rate, Increase the sample rate and we increase the accuracy of the stream. Improve the sample rate, you improve overall sound quality." We cannot create new data where none existed. A 16 bit, 44.1 kHz CD is limited to it's original data stream. We can manipulate the sampling rate as much as we like but we cannot put data where it does not exist in the original storage medium. The advantage to upsampling, if there is one, is the higher sampling frequency moves the original signal further away from the sampling frequency. This affects aliasing and the reduction in spurious signal creation. The non-harmonically related frequencies created by the digital systems are placed higher in frequency and lower in level. But no new data of significance to the music signal is possible. * "Finally I just wanted to say that this is exactly what I am looking for, past discussions on this topic have always been WAY too subjective for my liking. "It just sounds better cause it is warmer" I just have never got that." Both analog and digital playback systems have their problems. Redbook CD has become much better over the years while analog has become a true specialty market aimed at a small niche buying public. Anyone who ignores one over the other is missing quite a bit of good music. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 13 Registered: Jul-07 | In short, we respond to frequencies and levels well beyond our ability to hear. Responding to and hearing are tied to together but are not identical. This is where you lose me, how does ultra high or ultra low frequency creating the feelings usually used to describe vinyl? This discussion, has just convinced me that it is purely subjective. No different than ones preference for Bryston over Rega, or Scotch to Irish Whiskey, Blonds to Brunettes etc etc... They are all good. j |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 1469 Registered: Nov-05 | "I was reading in May edition of home theater mag, that CD is officially the worse sounding format of all time. Compared to LP and tape and such. They say that 10 years ago CD's were roughly 8 percent better, in sound quality then they are now. Just thought I would add my two cents. Nick, despite what you read, I would have to say they are dead wrong. But yes, there have been some recent terrible sounding cd's produced. One that comes to mind is Clapton's "Coming Home". I must say that some 'remastered' titles also sound very good while others are just mediocre. The production and mixing is one thing while what cd is capable of is another. While you vinyl spinners may well be right about it's sound quality, I find it hard to imagine it kicking CD's butt from what I hear of the best in our humble system. But that's it isn't, what we don't hear, we don't miss. And if we don't listen, we save money. |
|
Silver Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 219 Registered: Jun-07 | M.R- I don't even own a turntable. I, like you, listen to CD's. The problem is the music industry/companies are stretching the content amount to a level that a CD is not capable of handling. Causing more and more compression in today's music cd's. Yes, the production of cd's is getting worse. I understand that your coming from a technical stand point. In that case, cd's rule. As far as cd's being crammed with so much crap, and music production companies mixing music with one thing in mine...IPOD... CD's as a whole(some still sounding great mind you) are overall, as of 2007, the worse sounding audio source of all time. |
|
Silver Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 220 Registered: Jun-07 | But... this is just what I read, we had a discussion about it at work the other day. That said, The column could be way off. But..who knows. CD players on the other hand...are the best they have ever been obviously. |
|
Silver Member Username: Malco49Baltimore, Maryland Usa Post Number: 105 Registered: May-05 | the key here i think is a combination of applying technology to art.thus the subjectivity of what sounds,shall we say more rewarding is most likely in the ear of the beholder. cd technology is more "advanced" than vinyl technology but does that make it better? i still play 4-5 lp's monthly and listen to cd's less and less(i listen to music on my ipod either bought on itunes on encoded with lossless from red book cd,on my home stereo or in my car. i can't tell much difference between a cd and the ipod. when listening to vinyl i seem to hear a certain sound. i only wish sound engineer steve albini would chip in to this conversation,it is my understanding that he is a vinyl fan. also i was under the impression that analogue tape was no longer going to be manufactured and that basically any new recording is digital anyhow. oh jeez who knows what sounds better. i do know that i think some things IE john cotrane live at birdland captain beefheart trout mask replica are more enjoyable on vinyl. a little story.a friend a trusted musician with great taste and i were hanging out and i put on a record(vinyl)after a few minutes he looked up and said "WOW is that a record it sounds as good as a CD"!! so who knows........ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 11059 Registered: May-04 | . "This is where you lose me, how does ultra high or ultra low frequency creating the feelings usually used to describe vinyl? This discussion, has just convinced me that it is purely subjective." I give you clearly reasoned, factual accounts of the failings of digital and why digital is considered "subtractive" and you decide this is all "subjective"?! Where did you buy those blinders? They're quite effective. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 11061 Registered: May-04 | . Tell me how "subjective" you find the effects of jitter to be. Jitter is strictly a digital phenomenon and has no corresponding analog distortion. This is very different from "ones preference for Bryston over Rega, or Scotch to Irish Whiskey, Blonds to Brunettes etc etc... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter http://www.stereophile.com/reference/193jitter/index.html http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/ http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/jitter.htm Tell me, JS, do you listen to live music? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 14 Registered: Jul-07 | Your dedication to Vinyl is admirable and I respect that. I can accept most of the arguments(though not nessecarily believe all of them). As I see it the key flaw in your argument is we respond to frequencies and levels well beyond our ability to hear. There is nothing factual or quantitative about this statement. It is a purely subjective. If we have the ability to respond to frequencies > 20Khz emotionally show me the evidence, cause my searches failed to turn up any valid research. You are welcome to your opinion, but I prefer to choose the best that breeding and evolution has to offer. If that includes vinyl I have yet to decide. |
|
Silver Member Username: Malco49Baltimore, Maryland Usa Post Number: 106 Registered: May-05 | sorry i can't add much here,but the thread is interesting and "fun" jan-is fun ok?(meant to be funny) |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 11062 Registered: May-04 | . "I just do not understand why or how someone can say that vinyl sounds better than CD. My understanding is that LPs and analog recordings by the nature of their creation are lossy. A Tape running across a head creates noise, therefore resulting in data loss. Digital recordings do not suffer from mechanical noise creation, therefore capture data in a lossless format, producing what one would assume (and I believe) an superior reproduction of the musical experience." JS, disregarding your lack of understanding when you post, "A Tape running across a head creates noise, therefore resulting in data loss", have you ever heard of "dither" in digital recording and playback? Have you any idea what is the significance of "the least significant bit" in digital recording and playback? Do you understand why analog recording does not suffer from "the most significant bit"? Do you believe you know the difference between clipping an analog waveform vs. clipping a digital waveform? You are correct when you suggest digital playback does not suffer from identical mechanical problems which can exist in analog playback. But to believe digital captures and reproduces data in a "lossless" format, producing what one would assume is a superior reproduction of the musical experience is, at best, short sighted. Do you listen to any live music, JS? What is your reference for "the musical experience"? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 15 Registered: Jul-07 | So I find it interesting that your only current quoted sources is Wikipedia. A useful resource but hardly academic or scholarly. Two articles from the early 90s. Stereophile The Jitter Game Robert Harley Stereophile January, 1992 and Jitter & the Digital Interface Rémy Fourré, October, 1993 In fact a search of Stereophile has turned up no articles earlier than 1994. GGIT:2007-02,GGIT:en&q=Jitter+site:stereophile%2ecom,http://www.google.ca/search ?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGIT,GGIT:2007-02,GGIT:en&q=Jitter+site:stereop hile%2ecom I will not comment on Jon Risch Personal Homepage as this is hardly a valid source. How serious of an issue is jitter today if all the articles citing it as an issue are more than 10 years old? And yes I do enjoy live music.. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 16 Registered: Jul-07 | Jan... Woooooow dude... You are really tightly wound. That Hot August Texas air must be git'n to ya sitback.. grab a glass of wine(or ripple) and listen to the tunes |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 8242 Registered: Dec-04 | John, could you look for my email? Looking to see where you are shopping in SWO. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 11063 Registered: May-04 | . Do you think jitter has simply disappeared as a problem with digital playback? The problems were identified prior to and discussed in the 1990's. So was cancer. So was pollution. So was mine safety. That an issue has been discussed prior to this moment does not make it invalid as a continuing problem. Your "logic" is not logical. Reclocking devices were introduced in the late 1980's as a BandAid to jitter problems. Why do you think various forms of upsampling have their proponents today? Do you truly believe jitter is a non-issue? You've shown no evidence digital's problems have been solved. You've not even made an attempt. You've only dismissed the evidence I have presented that problems exist in digital playback and recording with a wave of your hand and an air that you are right and I am wrong. I thought you wanted to learn. What is your hesitation in disussing what I've presented? Are the facts simply too "subjective" for you? Is that really your opinion, that those of us who still hear problems in digital are subjective goofs? Dismissing Wikipedia and Jon Risch will require more than a sentence. What specifically in those two articles do you disagree with? What do you find to be not factual in those articles? Overall, they seem to be in agreement with the Stereophile articles. Are they not? You haven't mentioned dither, LSB, MSB or clipping a digital waveform. How exactly do these issues fit into your definition of the lossless, superior musical experience? If you wish to prefer digital to analog, I have no problem with that. CD's are by and large far more convenient than LP's. That is reason enough for some listeners to prefer digital playback. But to assume the technical problems of digital do not exist and those who prefer analog are merely influenced by subjective whims is absurd. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 17 Registered: Jul-07 | This I think is a better explanation for the Analog/digital argument. I partilicularly like the section Entitled "Was it ever entirely analog or digital?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound Cheers |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 8250 Registered: Dec-04 | A digital recording is produced by first converting the physical properties of the original sound into digital information (stored as bits) which can then be decoded for reproduction. The conversion process can be susceptible to noise and imperfection. However, the nature of the physical medium is immaterial in recovery of the encoded information as long as the individual bits can be recovered Uh huh. More than a analog source? Nope. The correction factors built into recent players make previously useless recordings available again,as well as making previous recordings available to the masses, in very good form. Benny Goodman never sounded like this to the wireless. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 11065 Registered: May-04 | . "So I find it interesting that your only current quoted sources is Wikipedia. A useful resource but hardly academic or scholarly." Good Crimeny! You dismiss the source and then turn around to use it as a resource?!!! Your question "was it ever entirely analog or digital" indicates you have no sense of history, JS. Your avoidance of my other issues says you don't really want to discuss this or learn. Go listen. Though I think your mind is already set to hear what you want to hear. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Mekongdelta69Grew up in Brooklyn an... Post Number: 49 Registered: Apr-07 | JS, Instead of repeating myself because writing long posts (whether on audio sites, programming/tech sites (I'm a programmer), political/cultural sites, R&B sites (I've been a record collector for 50 years), muscle car sites (I've been a street mechanic/gearhead -- and more -- forever)), takes a lot of time and energy, and if you've said it once, it becomes repetitive. So, in lieu of that, go here: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/361022.html (and scroll down to the post by me from Monday, July 09, 2007 - 12:24 pm) Any electronic/mechanical engineering specs listed above are facts. 2 + 2 = 4 (in my world, at least). They explain why certain mediums do what they do and sound the way they sound. But if you don't LOVE the music you listen to and if that music isn't a PART of you (and that part is unexplainable. That's where the old expression comes into play -- "if I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.") If the music isn't the most important thing, then all the rest is buying gear for the sake of buying gear. (Don't get me wrong -- it's a fun (but expensive) hobby and I respect other people's hobbies as much as my own primary ones. I'm certainly 'into' it enough myself, although not as much as other much more knowledgeable people on this board (and others).) [Read what I said in the above cited post about giving J.W. Blue to a wino, (etc.).] However, even if you don't read the post, take away this last line from it: It ALL comes down to what sounds good to YOU and YOU ALONE... . |
|
Bronze Member Username: SanioSouth Wester... Canada Post Number: 18 Registered: Jul-07 | Great Post Mike and I agree... It is what sounds good to the individual, a subjective personal thing. This was a great thread, I learned alot about analog tech, which is exactly what I was hoping to accomplish. Thanks for your contributions and I will report back from my field trip today.. Cheers... |