View Full Version : Which provides the more accurate playback - vinyl or CD/digital?
I have Rumours on a dull sounding original UK pressed LP and an equally dire first edition CD. I also have it as remastered FLACs and although slightly less 'dirty,' I still don't find it that wonderful. The tracks taken from Rumours and placed on the greatest hits CD of twenty odd years ago have the treble boosted a bit and I preferred these at the time.
I have Rumours on the rather rare hi-res DVD-A and it sounds tremendous and very revealing - for instance, the multi-tracking on The Chain.
Oldpinkman
01-03-2014, 21:21
I have Rumours on the rather rare hi-res DVD-A and it sounds tremendous and very revealing - for instance, the multi-tracking on The Chain.
Wtf. I have the original UK vinyl and the recent re-release vinyl & they are both good, although the original edges it
No, Jim, I don't think they do.
Why do you think such equipment is so sought after today, on the used market, by recording professionals who know what it's capable of? ;)
Marco.
As a frequenter of the gearslutz.com forum I'd suggest that much of that is about retro-philia, that versus plug-ins old gear keeps its value as something real and physical against software which pretty much becomes unsellable due to licenses and pirate copies available, £200,000 70s mixing desks are now in the financial reach of amateurs with a good savings pot (of high-end hifi proportions), lots of retirees who spent their lives accumulating money as dentists or insurance salesmen etc now have money to be the artist they wanted to be back in the day so now spend their money on gear their heros used... etc etc etc
Sooo many emotional and desire reasons coupled with nostalgia and economics AND there's marketing reasons like having an all-analogue set-up to attract those beatnic bands who have all these ideas instilled in their heads, thinking they're being original but really acting out a cliché of the music world.
Look at the "guess which track uses the plug-in and which the real thing" threads on there and you'll see 50/50 results amongst professional engineers and retro-gear enthusiasts.
Look at the real pros and they are all going on about how amazing their digital set-ups sound running with the lastest convertors.
Desks can be a bit different due to economies of scale - with digital consules taking some of the market up, a good, expensive new analogue desk will end up more expensive than the inflation adjusted cost of the Neve from yesteryear.. Much cheaper then to buy a real Neve from yesteryear and have it sorted..
Of course there will be many proponents of old gear who use it because of the sound. That's the same for hifi and with gear that others think sounds terrible.
There is also the other aspect of people pushing against this notion of doing EVERYTHING via a computer interface, very much like we've talked about with CD players v FBA.
So, the reasons are many and varied - a small percentage will be using it purely for its sonics.
I think the definition of simple may be different for digital fans. Digital recording makes things easy in enabling complex editing and mixing to be done at the press of a button. Producing good analogue recordings requires more skill in setting up even a simple recording and at the later editing and mixing stage if this is employed. This extra recording skill does not imply analogue recording is inferior. Quite the opposite it forced attention to detail which made recordings better.
No need to bother too much about fine details with digital as it can be fixed later in the digital domain. I suppose the best known result of this is auto tune.
Paul.
Plate spinning needs more skill than putting the same plates on a sturdy surface but one wouldn't conclude that spinning plates was then more desirable if what you want is your plates kept flat and unbroken simply because there is more skill involved, more "art" to the former.
If you didn't have the skill and measuring equipment or spend all that extra money on people with the skill and measuring equipment to keep your analogue gear set up every week then the sonic potential of your studio starts falling down around your ears, just like dropping plates.
The last line is false. It is well known you can't correct things further down the recording chain once you've recorded it be that analogue or digital. That is drummed in again and again even in the home enthusiast magazines!
Back in the day people would just be forced to either put out poor performances or fudge with splicing techniques or later on many overdubs and you still have analogue effects whist wearing out the tape having to go back and forth over it again and again.
Autotune is only relevent to the ability to push forward faces and marketable images over performer's ability - NOTHING to do with the sonics of a recording. Sound like an old fogey dismissing anything modern there.. and I'm sure you're not really like that!
Well at least my vote has equalled the balance between vinyl and digital.
I've gotta admit I am amused by the result. Technically, vinyl is a joke compared to digital. But the human ear doesn't match up too well with the measurements, it always seems.
It's understandable if you consider how the thread has gone.
As far as I was concerned the poll was a purely mental exercise in the technical abilities and NOT to do with what people hear at home. Definately some people can't and also don't want to seperate the two.
Hence the result is a mixture of different people answering a different poll, some of whom have just imagined the question! hahaha...
As far as I was concerned the poll was a purely mental exercise in the technical abilities and NOT to do with what people hear at home. Definately some people can't and also don't want to seperate the two.
"As far as I was concerned"... Indeed, Nat. That's simply how you have interpreted the poll!
As far as I was concerned, it was about what has largely been discussed: the definition of 'playback accuracy', as it is considered relevant by members, from equipment used in the vinyl and digital domain, and which one they believed was the most 'accurate', based on their definition of such in that context.
The fact is, the wording of the question is open to interpretation no matter how fixed an idea of that Tim had in his head when it was posed, or you did when you read it. Therefore, neither you nor he can superimpose your idea of what 'the more accurate playback' means, in the context of the question asked, onto someone else’s idea of such, and claim that yours is more relevant!
Aside from that, I'd contend that the way the thread has gone, contrary to that which you considered was 'correct', is precisely why it's been so interesting!!
:exactly:
Marco.
That was purley intended as tonque-in-cheek, Tim, hence the smiley! You should know me better than that by now :)
Marco.
Hahaha, indeed . . . but you still crack me up sometimes ;)
Some good posts Nat with which I completely agree. That old analogue gear is still in demand is not in doubt but it is used because a particular type of sound is wanted and not because it is superior. Not every recording is made to sound 'accurate' - a classic example would be early Oasis albums which are much criticised for poor production when in actual fact they went to some lengths to get exactly that sound - they had 3 goes at the first album trying to get it 'right'. The problem with solely being an end user or consumer of the products of the recording industry means that you will be prone to make false assumptions as to what is going on and what the motivations of the musicians and engineers actually is.
The problem with solely being an end user or consumer of the products of the recording industry means that you will be prone to make false assumptions as to what is going on and what the motivations of the musicians and engineers actually is.
Very true Martin.
Some good posts Nat with which I completely agree. That old analogue gear is still in demand is not in doubt but it is used because a particular type of sound is wanted and not because it is superior. Not every recording is made to sound 'accurate' - a classic example would be early Oasis albums which are much criticised for poor production when in actual fact they went to some lengths to get exactly that sound - they had 3 goes at the first album trying to get it 'right'. The problem with solely being an end user or consumer of the products of the recording industry means that you will be prone to make false assumptions as to what is going on and what the motivations of the musicians and engineers actually is.
It beggars belief that anyone could have 3 goes and get it to sound so bad. Reminds me of the insurance claim form which famously said "...I swerved 3 times before hitting the old gentleman".....or the other one "I hit the gentleman after turning to wave at the other gentleman I hit last week". You have to try really hard to mess things up that badly.
337alant
02-03-2014, 21:35
I think that Digital is more accurate but Analogue Vinyl and R2R sounds better IMO.
Strangely Digital recorded Via a DAC onto R2R sounds stunning and better than the digital, probably due to the lift in Bass you get from R2R
Alan
Hi Alan,
Sure... Or perhaps the latter, in actuality, produced the more faithful representation, musically, of the original sound?
If you love both the music itself and the sound quality of a given recording (i.e. to you it is perfect), then surely when recording it, the most faithful/accurate representation of that will also be the one that sounds the best?
There seems to be this underlying presumption that whenever digital is involved, either in the recording or playback process, it adds no sonic signature of its own, and thus is completely transparent. I genuinely don't believe that is true.
I'm not denying that the R2R may have introduced a lift in bass response, which perhaps was more pleasing to your ears, but that doesn't necessary mean that the digital recording, minus the introduction of the R2R, wasn't lacking in bass to start with, or was deficient in some other area, which was then fundamentally improved by the introduction of the R2R...
Try thinking about it that way instead! :)
Incidentally (and I need to get back to DSJR about this from a post he wrote earlier), I've found the exact same thing you have, when digitizing all-analogue vinyl recordings (from an era before digital was introduced) and comparing them with the same music produced 100% digitally, on modern commercial CDs, and it was nothing to do with bass being boosted, or any other sonic considerations, but simply that my digital recordings, of said music, sounded more real.
Marco.
This is an interesting clip - its just audio commentary, no video (25m 33s)
Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, or Not
EuWzWcfqla0&list=FLjS6ODTIUhHhkHL0MXbUV3g&feature=share
And some vinyl porn for the record lovers ;)
-DPt1PW9rY0
Thanks for the clips, Tim. I'll have a listen to those when I get a chance :)
Marco.
mad-moon
05-03-2014, 01:12
I love both..but the black stuff is king
I love both..but the black stuff is king
Yes that's all very nice Alan, but that was neither the question or the point of this exercise?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/internet-argument-resolved-2014030584268
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/internet-argument-resolved-2014030584268
“Since then it’s ranged across Richard Dawkins, Keynesian economics, dream Justice League line-ups, the standardisation of European shoe sizes and smartphone operating systems, Godwinising a record 43,378 times
Sounds like the 'MDAC first listen' thread on PFM
Sounds like the 'MDAC first listen' thread on PFM
Too close to the truth. Hilarious!
Rothchild
05-03-2014, 15:35
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/249/c/3/internet_argument_demotivator_by_party9999999-d5dswjs.png
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Laughing like a drain right now Marc, funniest thing I have seen posted in ages :rfl:
Here's a good post from Joachim Gerhard on DIYAudio.com
It could even be that a carefully designed compact SMD version sounds as good or better.
Sorry i did not find the time to tweak the filter. Tomorrow i will try 20kOhm.
I am even not sure if i already got it right. New ECM records from Manu Katche for example sound just fine and on old Jazz reissues from the 50th and 60th it is just right too.
The sound is now "natural" but not "spectacular" and this is what i am trying to combine.
That frustrates me with CD anyway, the sound varies between recordings a lot, so does dynamic range. Some years ago we measured 500 CDs and we found up to 30dB differences in loudness and from 10 to 14 bit. No one had 16 bit. In general we have discussed if CD is "transparent" on Bob Katz High Resolution Forum.
The consensus is that it is transparent as a playback medium but that better resolution is required in the studio. I think he called that "The Third Hypothesis".
So most CDs are never 16 bit. So even if one says that vinyl has a lower bit rate than CD, if such a comparison was directly possible, it still doesn't mean it is worse than CD in reality.
Again another reason, given the specifics of the actual poll question, why one's perception, one's experience of each is completely irrelevent (because it's rare that the possibilities of CD are ever fully utilised by the mastering/recording)
One's personal experience is never irrelevant, Nat, and neither is expressing it here, as it all adds to the pool of knowledge gained by the sharing of our experiences with others, whether you consider that experience as relevant to the poll question or not.
In that respect, Joachim Gerhard's opinion, which you've quoted, is as relevant as that of anyone else here - even those whose opinions you don't consider have dealt with the question 'correctly'.
Anyway, thanks for sharing JG's thoughts on the matter with us! :)
Marco.
Here's a good post from Joachim Gerhard on DIYAudio.com
So most CDs are never 16 bit. So even if one says that vinyl has a lower bit rate than CD, if such a comparison was directly possible, it still doesn't mean it is worse than CD in reality.
Again another reason, given the specifics of the actual poll question, why one's perception, one's experience of each is completely irrelevent (because it's rare that the possibilities of CD are ever fully utilised by the mastering/recording)
No, CD is 16 bit, the quote is looking at dynamic range and equally applicable to LP..... A 'hot' mastered LP will have the same limited bit depth as a 'hot' mastered CD.
No, CD is 16 bit, the quote is looking at dynamic range and equally applicable to LP..... A 'hot' mastered LP will have the same limited bit depth as a 'hot' mastered CD.
Hmm, that's like insisting a painting for sale is a 10ft wide canvas when the actual painted area is only 2 inches square (ok, in that instance the vast blank area can be part of the art concept! poor example.. )
I agree with you but it is a seperate point. A CD is not 16 bit if the concept of which one refers to when using the word "CD" is of the music and a CD's bit depth a measurement of it's equivalent dynamic range.
When people are judging by ear, "CD" refers to the music more normally and not the format or concept. e.g. if someone says the CD of some music sounds better, they are not listening to the silver disc, they are listening to the music on it.
So it's just an argument of symantics which is always wishywashy in much of human communication.
One's personal experience is never irrelevant, Nat, and neither is expressing it here, as it all adds to the pool of knowledge gained by the sharing of our experiences with others, whether you consider that experience as relevant to the poll question or not.
In that respect, Joachim Gerhard's opinion, which you've quoted, is as relevant as that of anyone else here - even those whose opinions you don't consider have dealt with the question 'correctly'.
Anyway, thanks for sharing JG's thoughts on the matter with us! :)
Marco.
JGs thoughts were the interesting bit of the post as you say.
I've not in my post said anywhere that personal experience is irrelevent and especially not in the case of general chit-chat on the thread with free-ranging thread drift as a natural part of human conversation! I think you've mis-interpretted that.
I was specifically talking of when people answer the poll that using their personal experience of listening to CD to judge whether CD or vinyl has the better potential, theoretical ability to be the most accurate, will likely lead to poor judgement because they are likely to be only listening to 14bit or 15bit dynamic range on average, not the possible 16bit dynamic range.
Same can be said for vinyl I guess in that they'd be likely judging from vinyl which doesn't fully exploit it's potential either.
In picking one's answer from the three options in the poll, personal experience is most likely irrelevent.
But hey, I don't want the circular argument to start up yet again! I just wanted to share an experienced audio person's trusted opinion on CD as we experience it as most people wouldn't go to the lengths to investigate how good their CDs were recorded, they'd just accept it as the "Sound of CD".
No worries, Nat. I get that.
I was specifically talking of when people answer the poll that using their personal experience of listening to CD to judge whether CD or vinyl has the better potential, theoretical ability to be the most accurate, will likely lead to poor judgement because they are likely to be only listening to 14bit or 15bit dynamic range on average, not the possible 16bit dynamic range.
Same can be said for vinyl I guess in that they'd be likely judging from vinyl which doesn't fully exploit it's potential either.
Sure... As with anything in audio, we can only make judgements within the limitations that exist - and there are many. However, that doesn't render our resulting judgements irrelevant, as there is value in all intelligent discussion/observation.
The fact is there are always going to be limitations present in every judgement we make, so if we had to reserve our judgement until there were no such limitations, then we'd be waiting forever before we could comment on anything... ;)
Therefore, when relating our personal experiences to others in audio, such limitations are a constant given, and so must always be 'factored in', but that doesn't devalue our experiences.
Point taken, however, and accepted :)
Marco.
The CD 'red book' format is invariably 16-bit/44kHz. What the discussion centres on is dynamic compression (or the loudness wars) which wrecks sound quality and reduces the number of bits actually required to encode and replay the music. All designed to make the music louder than anyone else's, to the detriment of all common sense.
See this Michael Jackson comparison for an excellent example of how to wreck a recording (no comment on the music itself):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Michael_Jackson-Black_or_White_Loudness.png
anthonyTD
25-03-2014, 13:20
In my opinion, the answer has to be Vinyl, with its higher noise floor, and its limited bandwidth!!! :eek:
I'm just kidding,:eyebrows: Accurate to what,??? the only things that matter, ie; PERSONAL PREFERENCE, AND SYSTEM DEPENDENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A...
Fight!
I just tipped CD into pole.
Naughty Nigel
25-03-2014, 20:53
A good analogue tape recording is more 'accurate' than a digital recording, in just the same way that a medium format film camera provides greater accuracy and detail than a digital camera. (If you look at a digital image closely it is made up of tiny blocks or 'pixels', whereas silver halide crystals in photographic films provide smother gradation.)
Digital sound recordings may have wider dynamic range, but they lose out elsewhere.
Try comparing a DAB radio broadcast with FM radio. Radio Three has a higher bit rate than any other station, but it still doesn't sound as good as R3 on my old Quad FM4 tuner, and is spoilt by digital artefacts (in the same way that Jpeg images suffer compression artefacts, loss of quality and gradation.)
As it happens, some of the best CD's that I have were mastered on analogue tapes using valve equipment!
Nigel.
+1000 (with bells on).
Nigel, you and I, my friend, are very much on the same page! ;)
Marco.
The Black Adder
25-03-2014, 21:04
A good analogue tape recording is more 'accurate' than a digital recording, in just the same way that a medium format film camera provides greater accuracy and detail than a digital camera. (If you look at a digital image closely it is made up of tiny blocks or 'pixels', whereas silver halide crystals in photographic films provide smother gradation.)
Digital sound recordings may have wider dynamic range, but they lose out elsewhere.
Try comparing a DAB radio broadcast with FM radio. Radio Three has a higher bit rate than any other station, but it still doesn't sound as good as R3 on my old Quad FM4 tuner, and is spoilt by digital artefacts (in the same way that Jpeg images suffer compression artefacts, loss of quality and gradation.)
As it happens, some of the best CD's that I have were mastered on analogue tapes using valve equipment!
Nigel.
Damn right... +1
And today Toe Rag Studios do just that... And the sound is magnificent. Of course you have to have a great producer and engineers behind the scenes to make it all happen but hey... they enjoy it and I'd rather have that than a laptop any day. IMO of course...
The comparison with photography is not correct. Recordings on analogue tape are not fractal like an analogue photograph.
Try talking to musicians who record regularly or to sound engineers. They don't think that analogue recording is more accurate. If they do use it then it is because they want to create a particular sound. You can romanticise all you want it doesn't change reality.
You can romanticise all you want it doesn't change reality.
It's got nothing to do with romaticising, Martin. It's simply that your reality differs from others and mine, and we don't really know which is more real... ;)
There are plenty of musicians and sound engineers around who prefer using analogue recording processes, and consider that they produce musically superior results, and vice versa with digital. In essence, therefore, your 'reality' is what your ears and experience dictates!!
Marco.
PaulStewart
25-03-2014, 22:17
A good analogue tape recording is more 'accurate' than a digital recording, in just the same way that a medium format film camera provides greater accuracy and detail than a digital camera. (If you look at a digital image closely it is made up of tiny blocks or 'pixels', whereas silver halide crystals in photographic films provide smother gradation.)
Digital sound recordings may have wider dynamic range, but they lose out elsewhere.
Try comparing a DAB radio broadcast with FM radio. Radio Three has a higher bit rate than any other station, but it still doesn't sound as good as R3 on my old Quad FM4 tuner, and is spoilt by digital artefacts (in the same way that Jpeg images suffer compression artefacts, loss of quality and gradation.)
As it happens, some of the best CD's that I have were mastered on analogue tapes using valve equipment!
Nigel.
That would be all well and good if it were accurate, however the film analogy falls down as the number of pixels per sq/cm on top range pro sensors exceeds the number of grains of halide per sq/cm of film. When Kodak introduced their 16mp pro back for medium format years ago they discontinued Kodachrome 25 so they could claim "More pixels than any film has crystals" Also, film has a hysteresis curve, digital is linear so you get mush better performance at extremes such as low light. The problem with Jpegs is not pixel density it's compression and the amount of information thrown away. Uncompressed TIFFs or raw files don't have artifacts. Same with DAB, it's lossy 38k sample rate is execrable even red book CD throws a lot of information away.
If you want accurate reproduction you need to keep as much info as possible 96k/24bit uncompressed .wavs is in my opinion, the minimum for digital. Accurate analogue on vinyl requires as uncompressed as possible a cut, with good vari-pitch using a second head and not a digital delay. I spoke to one cuttingb room recently who told me they don't have a tape player, they mainly cut from CD. Are they bloody insane, no just run by bean counters.
Cheers
PaulStewart
25-03-2014, 22:22
And today Toe Rag Studios do just that...
Sorry peeps - just one for me and Marco.... Toe Rag as well as having a faboulous vintage analogue set up.... Use Lockward Majors with Tannoy DCs, Monotor Golds I think :)
Sorry peeps - just one for me and Marco.... Toe Rag as well as having a faboulous vintage analogue set up.... Use Lockward Majors with Tannoy DCs, Monotor Golds I think :)
They did but I think Joe has their Lockwoods now...
That would be all well and good if it were accurate, however the film analogy falls down as the number of pixels per sq/cm on top range pro sensors exceeds the number of grains of halide per sq/cm of film. When Kodak introduced their 16mp pro back for medium format years ago they discontinued Kodachrome 25 so they could claim "More pixels than any film has crystals" Also, film has a hysteresis curve, digital is linear so you get mush better performance at extremes such as low light. The problem with Jpegs is not pixel density it's compression and the amount of information thrown away. Uncompressed TIFFs or raw files don't have artifacts. Same with DAB, it's lossy 38k sample rate is execrable even red book CD throws a lot of information away.
If you want accurate reproduction you need to keep as much info as possible 96k/24bit uncompressed .wavs is in my opinion, the minimum for digital. Accurate analogue on vinyl requires as uncompressed as possible a cut, with good vari-pitch using a second head and not a digital delay. I spoke to one cuttingb room recently who told me they don't have a tape player, they mainly cut from CD. Are they bloody insane, no just run by bean counters.
Cheers
+1
The R3 comments are interesting as the BBC switched to digital 13bit PCM bandwidth limited to 15Khz for the relay of broadcasts to the FM transmitters back in 1972~73! Prior to that they where analogue FDM lines run over bandwidth limited GPO lines that had 'quality' issues. The switch to PCM fixed that. ;)
Edit: I should add that they switched to NICAM at a later date which AFAIK was / is 14 bit...
PaulStewart
25-03-2014, 22:50
IIRC the BBC SHF PCM trunk relays are 10 bit but the signal is compressed using NICAM before being digitised, seems to work well though, I far prefer my Leak Stereofetic to any DAB. Weirdly the Freeview radio and Virgin Cable (not sure about Sky), use 48k and sound much better to me.
+1
The R3 comments are interesting as the BBC switched to digital PCM for the relay of broadcasts to the FM transmitters back in 1972! Prior to that they where analogue FDM lines run over bandwidth limited GPO lines that had 'quality' issues. The switch to PCM fixed that. ;)
Fight!
I just tipped CD into pole.
I just fly-tipped CDs into Poole..
Ahem, anyway... I think there maybe forces at work subverting the poll for propganda purposes. Soon as you did that, suddenly more votes arrived for vinyl. I'd bet Barbarian's old login name has voted and so Andr'e voting twice for the sake of promoting vinyl regardless of the actual question.. ho hum.
A good analogue tape recording is more 'accurate' than a digital recording, in just the same way that a medium format film camera provides greater accuracy and detail than a digital camera. (If you look at a digital image closely it is made up of tiny blocks or 'pixels', whereas silver halide crystals in photographic films provide smother gradation.)
Digital sound recordings may have wider dynamic range, but they lose out elsewhere.
Try comparing a DAB radio broadcast with FM radio. Radio Three has a higher bit rate than any other station, but it still doesn't sound as good as R3 on my old Quad FM4 tuner, and is spoilt by digital artefacts (in the same way that Jpeg images suffer compression artefacts, loss of quality and gradation.)
As it happens, some of the best CD's that I have were mastered on analogue tapes using valve equipment!
Nigel.
With the photography analogy you seem to be saying that blurring (smoother graduation) is more "accurate" than a much more finely detailed but pixilated image.. It may seem nicer, more smooth, more like how your eyes see yet it is definately not more accurate!
And herein perhaps lies the conceptual problem, how some falsely associate humanly perceived pleasingness with accuracy. "It sounds nicer therefore it must be more natural and therefore more accurate"
You could probably, conceptually, take a bit of both to be honest, meet some way between.
Still, perhaps there is a fundamental difference between people who see the world from the different perspectives of object and subject.
That reminds me of something I've read, a real psychological study/theory - being able to divide people, with some large generalisation, into two; those who see the world looking out and those who see the world looking toward themselves. For one, reality IS what they experience internally and for the other reality is what happens outside of them regardless of their internal reactions. This being so profound to each that it is not simply a concept one can switch about by thought experiment but is what their whole being is based around, how they judge everything and deeply so.
I'm in the latter camp and see myself as living in an external reality, my personal internal experience of that reality certainly is no arbiter of truth, only a particular reaction.
haha... what a pretentious twit I am.
walpurgis
25-03-2014, 23:50
That reminds me of something I've read, a real psychological study/theory - being able to divide people, with some large generalisation, into two; those who see the world looking out and those who see the world looking toward themselves. For one, reality IS what they experience internally and for the other reality is what happens outside of them regardless of their internal reactions.
Hmm. Who came up with that?
With the photography analogy you seem to be saying that blurring (smoother graduation) is more "accurate" than a much more finely detailed but pixilated image.. It may seem nicer, more smooth, more like how your eyes see yet it is definately not more accurate!
And herein perhaps lies the conceptual problem, how some falsely associate humanly perceived pleasingness with accuracy. "It sounds nicer therefore it must be more natural and therefore more accurate"
You and I must live in very different worlds then, Nat!
In terms of judging something visually, surely the benchmark for any genuine 'accuracy' is replicating, as faithfully as possible, that which is seen by the naked eye (using perfect eyesight as the yardstick from which perfection is attained)?
What could possibly be more accurate or relevant to us than that? Or would you rather a computer chip was responsible for displaying your view of the world every day?
It seems that some people would rather be robots (programmed on 'logic' and 'accuracy') than human beings!!
That's the big problem I have with these types of discussions: folk considering that some man-made machine or new technology is ever going to be genuinely superior to or capable of superseding the God-given senses (or organs) we were born with, when they are at their most acute or performing at anywhere near their full potential!
As for that old chestnut, contained in your second paragraph, please don't start that again, as it should be patently clear by now (how many times does it need written before it penetrates?) that the reason why many of us consider analogue preferable to digital has got nothing whatsoever to do with 'niceness' and everything to do with what we perceive as sounding more REAL. The fact is, you can't get any better than what one perceives as real!
Therefore, please let that sink in once and for all, because it's extremely insulting to continually have one's genuine perceptions ignorantly dismissed as fallacy.
Returning to photography, I can't comment on the technicalities involved in either the digital or analogue image reproduction process, but like I know what I can hear, I also know what I can see: and to my eyes, the best images developed on film by a talented photographer, able to fully optimise the process, appear as far more natural and lifelike than its digital counterpart, produced by an equally talented photographer.
Just ask Haselsh1 (Shaun), on this forum, a very gifted professional photographer, what he thinks on the matter and observe the stunning quality of his images, developed from film, posted in our Abstract Gallery, and compare them with his digital images. Even by merely examining them on a computer screen, I can tell the difference (and so can he)!
But no, of course, for technology geeks and those unable or unwilling to trust their senses, or appreciate just what is possible by maximising one's own or someone else's God-given talents, man-made computer software will always automatically make things better... :doh:
Marco.
I'm in the latter camp and see myself as living in an external reality...
That's nice. Have you had that notion professionally diagnosed, and established as fact, or is it simply your own perception? ;)
Marco.
I suppose it depends on how many knocks you have taken. You can live in your internal reality but the real objective reality is out there and the two will clash eventually. Like these people you see with tens of thousands of pounds of debt becasue they have been living in a fantasy world where their spending far exceeds their income.
Not that I am saying that is an analogy with thinking analogue is more accurate than digital, just that it is very hard to shake some people out of their fantasy view of the world, especially if they have been able to maintain that view for a long time. Perhaps tackling the whole analogue/digital debate along broader philosophical lines is the best way to go with this?
Not that I am saying that is an analogy with thinking analogue is more accurate than digital, just that it is very hard to shake some people out of their fantasy view of the world, especially if they have been able to maintain that view for a long time.
Indeed, Martin, but that applies to everyone; not just those whose sensibilities and mindset align oppositely to yours! ;)
The fact is, ALL of us, objectivists and subjectivists (and everyone else), are capable of having 'fantasy views', as human nature itself is fundamentally flawed.
The problem is that some people believe that 'reality' is defined solely by what is objectively measurable (and focus firmly on that), and others whilst acknowledging that it partly explains what's happening, believe that the other part lies in areas where the biological organs and senses we were born with are able to recognise and process phenomena that is fundamental to us experiencing reality, in its truest sense, but which as yet cannot be measured...
That is why, for example, that no matter how many times someone rams 'facts & figures' down my throat about how supposedly much more 'accurate' digital is, compared with analogue, I accept that partly what they're saying is true, but is overall ultimately demonstrated as being flawed, when I actually sit down and listen, because quite clearly, there is more going on than what our currently available test apparatus is telling us.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
26-03-2014, 09:43
Perhaps tackling the whole analogue/digital debate along broader philosophical lines is the best way to go with this?
Rather too dangerous I suspect. Things are personal enough as it is:)
Indeed, Gordon.
Some, who are already applying that process, are happy to self-diagnose themselves as living inside the 'correct' reality, whilst simultaneously feeling qualified to pigeonhole others as living in an 'incorrect' reality, simply because their views don't align with theirs, their mindset is different, or have measurements/'facts' that, if assessed superficially, appear to confirm their views.
Instead of over-thinking things and indulging in unqualified bollocks-talk, wouldn't it be easier simply to agree to disagree, and move on? :)
Marco [whose fingers are hovering dangerously close to the 'lock thread' button].
Person A: 'Analogue is better than digital'
Person B: 'How would you define 'better'?
Person A: 'It sounds better to my ears'
Person B: 'How can you know that without blind testing?'
Person A: 'Blind testing is fundamentally flawed. I trust my ears.'
Person B: 'But your ears are easily fooled. Have a look at this You Tube video featuring Poppy Z Brite that proves this'
Person A: 'That video proves nothing. You only have to listen to hear that analogue is vastly superior to digital in capturing the emotion in a recording'
Person B: 'The emotion is in the music. It cannot be added by the system'
Person A: 'The emotion is conveyed via subtle timing and musical cues which are lost once digital components are introduced'
Person B: 'You do realise that any recordings made in the past 40 years include some digital elements? Have a read of this white paper by Professor Plum published in The Journal of Electrical Engineering way back in 1975'.
Person A: 'I bet Professor Plum wore a white lab coat and carried an oscilloscope'
[cont'd to page 94 and threadlock]
PS Can an interconnect costing $3,200 for a 1 metre pair be 'good value for money'?
walpurgis
26-03-2014, 10:38
Marco [whose fingers are hovering dangerously close to the 'lock thread' button].
Might be necessary. Too much 'Bo**ocks' being propounded maybe. :eek:
Okies, I think more than enough now has been written on this subject, so to prevent any further pointless and circular arguments...
<Thread closed>
It turns out that the most accurate thing in the end was Joe's précis! ;)
Anyway, thanks to all who contributed to one of the most interesting, entertaining and enlightening discussions AoS has seen! :)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.