View Full Version : Good analog and good digital converge?
magiccarpetride
06-04-2018, 16:31
Last year I switched from listening to digitally sourced music to listening to analog sources (vinyl). I made a switch out of curiosity, after reading how many people claim that vinyl beats digital. To be honest, I was expecting that vinyl playback will end up being quaint, a little bit nostalgic, but nowhere near as good as proper digital setup.
Much to my surprise, my vinyl rig delivered sound that was in no way lagging behind the digital reproduction. Then, after I got accustomed to vinyl, I started doing side-by-side comparisons. Again, much to my surprise, I found that often times vinyl sounded better (or, preferable) to my ears. I became a vinyl aficionado after experiencing that difference.
So I started slowly working on improving my turntable etc. Fast forward to the present time, and I now think I have a turntable setup that is better than what I had last year. I've invested in a better phono, better tonearm, better cabling, replaced spherical stylus with nude elliptical, tweaked my turntable, the whole nine yards.
So I decided to do side-by-side comparison with the digital again. I was now expecting that my new analog front end will absolutely blow the digital out of the water.
Much to my shock, that didn't happen! As a matter of fact, now my analog and my digital playback sound very, very similar. It's as if the gap, that I experienced last year, has all but closed.
So my conclusion is that as you keep improving your analog front end, you are approximating the sound of a good digital front end. This, to me, means that a good hi fi system (regardless of whether it's analog or digital) is actually approaching the sound one can find on the master tape.
Has anyone else experienced this interesting convergence?
Yes, so I gave up on vinyl and bought all my vinyl favourites on CD instead. It's cheaper ( a replacement stylus for my cart is £240!) and less hassle.
But...
Since being all digital for about a year now I've a hankering to get the TT up and running again. The CD versions of the vinyl are not the same. Now don't get me wrong, every musician I have ever met who has recorded in the studio, reckons digital sounds more like what they heard in the studio when listening to playback. To a man. And my limited experience in studios leads me to the same conclusion.
Now it may be I am just used to listening to these recordings on vinyl. Some of them I have had for 30 years and played hundreds of times (Zep, Hendrix, Clapton, Steely Dan, The Cult, Zappa, etc). And I know that no matter what I do with the digital source those albums will never sound like they do on vinyl. (Yes, I know you can get software that will emulate vinyl and I've not tried it but I have my doubts that it will cut it).
The crazy thing about vinyl is that the limitations of the 1950s technology,quite by accident, have a psycho-acoustic effect. It's like they tailored vinyl to sound good (except they didn't). Mono bass, benign distortion, arm and cart resonances actually enhance the sound from the listener's point of view, adding a euphoric quality and a presence to the sound that is not on the original recording, but makes it all sound so much more real and present. There's not really any getting away from it.
Now I know some people will say that it isn't those things at all that make vinyl sound better, it's a simple matter of 'analogue purity.' But that argument falls down in so many places I can't take it seriously anymore. It's really all about psycho-acoustics, folks.
magiccarpetride
06-04-2018, 17:49
Yes, so I gave up on vinyl and bought all my vinyl favourites on CD instead. It's cheaper ( a replacement stylus for my cart is £240!) and less hassle.
But...
Since being all digital for about a year now I've a hankering to get the TT up and running again. The CD versions of the vinyl are not the same. Now don't get me wrong, every musician I have ever met who has recorded in the studio, reckons digital sounds more like what they heard in the studio when listening to playback. To a man. And my limited experience in studios leads me to the same conclusion.
Now it may be I am just used to listening to these recordings on vinyl. Some of them I have had for 30 years and played hundreds of times (Zep, Hendrix, Clapton, Steely Dan, The Cult, Zappa, etc). And I know that no matter what I do with the digital source those albums will never sound like they do on vinyl. (Yes, I know you can get software that will emulate vinyl and I've not tried it but I have my doubts that it will cut it).
The crazy thing about vinyl is that the limitations of the 1950s technology,quite by accident, have a psycho-acoustic effect. It's like they tailored vinyl to sound good (except they didn't). Mono bass, benign distortion, arm and cart resonances actually enhance the sound from the listener's point of view, adding a euphoric quality and a presence to the sound that is not on the original recording, but makes it all sound so much more real and present. There's not really any getting away from it.
Now I know some people will say that it isn't those things at all that make vinyl sound better, it's a simple matter of 'analogue purity.' But that argument falls down in so many places I can't take it seriously anymore. It's really all about psycho-acoustics, folks.
You may be on to something there, Mr. Drunken Moderator. But here is what's curious to me:
During my first iteration with vinyl, I was smitten by these 'psycho-acoustics' artifacts, as you call them. Yes, I can now see how there was some interesting euphonic happening during vinyl playback.
But now, that I have improved my tonearm, stylus, cabling, plinth, that euphonic has all but disappeared. Obviously a better tonearm minimizes resonances, which results in a more 'digital' sound. So the irony may be that the better a turntable setup is, the less 'vinyl' the sound gets.
Or am I completely off my rocker here?
You may be on to something there, Mr. Drunken Moderator. But here is what's curious to me:
During my first iteration with vinyl, I was smitten by these 'psycho-acoustics' artifacts, as you call them. Yes, I can now see how there was some interesting euphonic happening during vinyl playback.
But now, that I have improved my tonearm, stylus, cabling, plinth, that euphonic has all but disappeared. Obviously a better tonearm minimizes resonances, which results in a more 'digital' sound. So the irony may be that the better a turntable setup is, the less 'vinyl' the sound gets.
Or am I completely off my rocker here?
No, that's exactly what I found going from a Nagaoka MP11 to an MP50 (which is arguably the best MM cart you can buy). Less euphoric, more like digital. To an extent, the baby went out with the bathwater.
I had a listen to Marco's SL1200 when he had some fancy Ortofon MC on it and that was the same. So close to his CD player in character it was uncanny. I didn't see the point. When he changed it to a fancy Denon, then you could hear why vinyl is worth the bother.
magiccarpetride
06-04-2018, 18:20
No, that's exactly what I found going from a Nagaoka MP11 to an MP50 (which is arguably the best MM cart you can buy). Less euphoric, more like digital. To an extent, the baby went out with the bathwater.
I had a listen to Marco's SL1200 when he had some fancy Ortofon MC on it and that was the same. So close to his CD player in character it was uncanny. I didn't see the point. When he changed it to a fancy Denon, then you could hear why vinyl is worth the bother.
Yeah, I now have a hunch if I go back to Denon that, on my new Jelco tonearm, it's going to restore that 'vinyl euphoria' which introduces some resonances etc. that make vinyl playback so different from digital. But right now, with Ortofon OM20, it's near indistinguishable in character from digital.
Basically it all boils down to how your ear works as a transducer and its ability to hear and translate anlogue waveforms to the brain. Hearing is non linear and we have the ability to hear precisely the location and tonal information / pitch even in a distorted sound environment.
Our ear and brain are very Sensitive to analogue waveforms but find it very difficult to interpret digital induced waveforms in the same way. All the rubbish that happens in the digital process up to and after the DAC has converted still does not trick the brain into believing it is hearing something real, accurate or indeed to my experience pleasant.
Now as DACs have improved and we understand the influence of RF in the audio chain and its corruption of the digital signal and how to get around it, not to mention the removal of jitter, we are slowly reconstructing the original digital recording in a manner which is beginning to sound half decent.
It is no way to my ears as good as the best analogue equipment and indeed I think you have to spend a large amount to beat even quite humble analogue set ups. This goes against what a lot of people believe with digital equipment but honestly most CD players and most digital systems sound thin, tonally bereft and harsh compared to analogue.
There are some DACs out there like Chords DAVE which have moved the whole experience on hugely and are a benchmark for what can now be achieved with digital music and it does indeed have an analogue sound.
If you really believe digital sounds as good as analogue that is up to you and your hearing ability.
For me it still falls short of analogue with all its short comings and distortions.
magiccarpetride
06-04-2018, 19:15
Basically it all boils down to how your ear works as a transducer and its ability to hear and translate anlogue waveforms to the brain. Hearing is non linear and we have the ability to hear precisely the location and tonal information / pitch even in a distorted sound environment.
Our ear and brain are very Sensitive to analogue waveforms but find it very difficult to interpret digital induced waveforms in the same way. All the rubbish that happens in the digital process up to and after the DAC has converted still does not trick the brain into believing it is hearing something real, accurate or indeed to my experience pleasant.
Now as DACs have improved and we understand the influence of RF in the audio chain and its corruption of the digital signal and how to get around it, not to mention the removal of jitter, we are slowly reconstructing the original digital recording in a manner which is beginning to sound half decent.
It is no way to my ears as good as the best analogue equipment and indeed I think you have to spend a large amount to beat even quite humble analogue set ups. This goes against what a lot of people believe with digital equipment but honestly most CD players and most digital systems sound thin, tonally bereft and harsh compared to analogue.
There are some DACs out there like Chords DAVE which have moved the whole experience on hugely and are a benchmark for what can now be achieved with digital music and it does indeed have an analogue sound.
If you really believe digital sounds as good as analogue that is up to you and your hearing ability.
For me it still falls short of analogue with all its short comings and distortions.
I am using Logitech Squeezebox Touch for digital. Compared to Systemdek with Jelco 750E 10" tonearm/Ortofon OM20/iFi Micro iPhono combo, Squeezebox Touch sounds nearly identical.
Go figure...
I am using Logitech Squeezebox Touch for digital. Compared to Systemdek with Jelco 750E 10" tonearm/Ortofon OM20/iFi Micro iPhono combo, Squeezebox Touch sounds nearly identical.
Go figure...
Go figure that's how you hear it.:) Maybe I am just more sensitive to digital sound. I even had to turn off my DAB in the car and return to FM because the DAC sounded crap and resulted in a thin toned, top end etched sound.
WESTLOWER
06-04-2018, 19:30
I am using Logitech Squeezebox Touch for digital. Compared to Systemdek with Jelco 750E 10" tonearm/Ortofon OM20/iFi Micro iPhono combo, Squeezebox Touch sounds nearly identical.
Go figure...
The word 'nearly' is key for me!
The crazy thing about vinyl is that the limitations of the 1950s technology,quite by accident, have a psycho-acoustic effect. It's like they tailored vinyl to sound good (except they didn't). Mono bass, benign distortion, arm and cart resonances actually enhance the sound from the listener's point of view, adding a euphoric quality and a presence to the sound that is not on the original recording, but makes it all sound so much more real and present. There's not really any getting away from it.
Now I know some people will say that it isn't those things at all that make vinyl sound better, it's a simple matter of 'analogue purity.' But that argument falls down in so many places I can't take it seriously anymore. It's really all about psycho-acoustics, folks.
Interesting comment Martin, and those re. some TTs sounding like digital. I've been contemplating the next steps in tweaking my Heybrook TT2, and want to attack some possible sources of resonance (bottom plate, plinth, sub-chassis, etc.), but my fear is that I will go too far and make this wonderful deck sound too much like my CD player (which sounds outstanding, BTW, but not what I want my Heybrook to sound like). Oh well, at least the mods will be reversible, so if I don't like what I hear I can always revert to the way it was.
I think you guys are all bang-on re. the distortions in vinyl are actually what give it its unique character. Gotta love it, warts and all.
Good thread, this.
Best,
Svend
Martin I think your theory of what makes analogue music sound pleasant is just your theory. The elephant In the room you always ignore is simply analogue music sounds better because the ear has evolved to listen this way and not to reconstructed mathematical square waves.
My main vinyl setup does not sound that different to good digital. Where digital tends to striggle is around stage depth. I don't have the vinyl euphony that some speak of. I'm sure such euphony exists but it is a feature of kit with poorly controlled resonances. Ultimately the best of digital and the best of vinyl converge.
Characterising vinyl as euphonic is like saying valve amps sound warm and cuddly. It can be the case but needn't be and often isn't.
montesquieu
06-04-2018, 20:04
What is this 1985? People still stunned by how clean and modern that new Dire Straits album sounds in the hifi shop? Why can't I get my mouldy old Garrard SP25 to sound like that? Give me one of those Compact Disk players right away!
Anyway ....
Some really good points above. I have a system in my study that basically replicates that speakers-up-on-top-of-bookcases (because there was no room for fancy stands), emotionally satisfying but far from hifi vinyl sound I had in my bedroom (I had to fit my piano and my guitars in there, as well as somewhere to sit and write essays longhand) back in the early 80s. The psycho-acoustic effect related to memory is powerful - I can hardly listen to Bowie or Dylan or Neil Young on my main system, it sounds totally wrong to hear all that stuff going on in the studio. But with badly spaced speakers and a basic cartridge, it delivers emotionally what it (for me) is supposed to, and takes me back to the past as reliably as Proust's madeleines.
On the other hand I also agree that the better a vinyl system, gets the closer it comes to fixing the things CD was supposed to fix (pops, clicks, groove hiss, mistracking and so on). But there is still a divergence. Vinyl still does something that sounds better to my ears at least (if not to an oscilloscope). And both are a very difficult to take to the ultimate and I guess what the ultimate is is not something objective by any stretch.
I was doing some thinking lately about digital and analogue and it seemed to me that in a lot of ways, DAC choice is like choosing a cartridge - you go for your preferences, which are often unconscious and certainly generally un-articulated: whatever your preferences - tipped up treble to hear those cymbals, explosive bass, a pipe and slippers, laid back presentation, ultra detail, instruments forward in the mix - you pick one that combines what you like, even possibly one tailored to the musical genres you like. (And I don't think this has that much to do with DAC chips and what happens in the digital domain, it seems clear to me from my experience that the crucial element in a DAC's sound is the output stage).
If that's the case then certainly wouldn't be beyond the powers of the unconscious mind (let alone the conscious one) for a hifi nut to be working towards convergence in sound between their digital and their analogue source components - indeed there's even benefit in having similar gain levels. It stands to reason that if you ended up with vinyl and digital that sounded different, then one of them would clearly be deemed to be 'wrong'! And so we are back at psycho-acoustics.
I agree with the premis that the best digital and the best vinyl do converge although they are still different.
Even though I am obviously a massive vinyl fan I do concede that I have heard digital do things even the best vinyl cannot achieve. In fact I would say if the progress I have heard with digital goes any further we are entering an acoustic experience unlike anything I have heard before. Give digital development another 10 years and it will sound remarkable and vinyl will sound limited by its technical parameters.
I am using Logitech Squeezebox Touch for digital. Compared to Systemdek with Jelco 750E 10" tonearm/Ortofon OM20/iFi Micro iPhono combo, Squeezebox Touch sounds nearly identical.
Go figure...
As fantastic the Touch is (absolutly loved mine at the time)..theres your problem. You can do better.
Digital in my ‘second’ system is a Logitech Transporter...and it’s WAY better than the Touch.
My first foray into streaming was a Slimserver branded SB3 and so, so happy for the Journey. (Look over the old squeezebox forums, I was there back in the Day)
Transporters as good as it gets to 24/96...but things move on.
For the record, I have a pretty decent vinyl system and its as good as my digital...just presented in a different way.
I enjoy both.
Alex,
Been seeing your posts for a number of years now...you’ve still not sorted your stuff out yet...I’m surprised man?
You relegated the transporter? I'm surprised
magiccarpetride
06-04-2018, 20:49
As fantastic the Touch is (absolutly loved mine at the time)..theres your problem. You can do better.
Digital in my ‘second’ system is a Logitech Transporter...first foray into streaming was a Slimserver branded SB3 and so, so happy for the Journey. (Look over the old squeezebox forums, I was there back in the Day)
Transporters as good as it gets to 24/96...but things move on.
For the record, I have a pretty decent vinyl system and its as good as my digital...just presented in a different way.
I enjoy both.
Alex,
Been seeing your posts for a number if years now...you’ve still not sorted your stuff out yet...surprised man.
Show me a person who is firmly convinced that they've sorted their stuff, and I'll show you a charlatan.
walpurgis
06-04-2018, 20:51
I must be a charlatan then! :)
Show me a person who is firmly convinced that they've sorted their stuff, and I'll show you a charlatan.
No...not so much.
Wasn’t being confrontstional, but some of us music lovers have actually got there?
You relegated the transporter? I'm surprised
The new Dac running as a Roon endpoint blows it into the weeds Grant.
...and...Relax. :)
whens Brian coming over, the buggers not said!
No...not so much.
Wasn’t being confrontstional, but some of us music lovers have actually got there?
It's a combination of ridding one's self of OCD upgraditis, getting mostly there and stopping chasing the dragon .
It's a combination of ridding one's self of OCD upgraditis, getting mostly there and stopping chasing the dragon .
This.
...and...Relax. :)
whens Brian coming over, the buggers not said!
NO idea Gary
As long as your happy. Sure u didn't do it as a flight of fancy
Martin I think your theory of what makes analogue music sound pleasant is just your theory. The elephant In the room you always ignore is simply analogue music sounds better because the ear has evolved to listen this way and not to reconstructed mathematical square waves.
But when the vinyl is cut it goes through a digital/analogue convertor? And if the recording was made on a digital recorder to begin with? The analohue purity is ruined before it even gets to you.
Now if we talk recordings and records cut completely pre digital (and even pre-solid state) then yes, I agree they have something a 'perfect' digital recording does not have. But we are well into the realms of subjectivism and in operational terms, multiple possibilities of cause there. Maybe that is the proof of the analogue purity theory. I'm guessing not, I may be wrong.
But if you want to be truly purist analogue it is reel to reel you want, not vinyl ;)
NO idea Gary
As long as your happy. Sure u didn't do it as a flight of fancy
Fair point fella.
Its ALL a flight of fancy, depending on your current pov.
Naa..
fed up being on the roundabout...too many years...go nuclear and do it right, only have to do it once.
Stings at the time, but only do it once.
Did my research, not a drop wasted...trust me.
I wonder how much vinyl played is modern digital sourced. For myself not much of it is. Might as well buy the CD and rip it. Some of my issues with modern vinyl though is much to do with modern recording techniques.
But when the vinyl is cut it goes through a digital/analogue convertor? And if the recording was made on a digital recorder to begin with? The analohue purity is ruined before it even gets to you.
Now if we talk recordings and records cut completely pre digital (and even pre-solid state) then yes, I agree they have something a 'perfect' digital recording does not have. But we are well into the realms of subjectivism and in operational terms, multiple possibilities of cause there. Maybe that is the proof of the analogue purity theory. I'm guessing not, I may be wrong.
But if you want to be truly purist analogue it is reel to reel you want, not vinyl ;)
A perspective?
Turn up at a mates gaffe slightly worse for wear after a night out and He has a good hifi system.
A GOOD hifi system?
In our terms...I say enjoy!
* What if a random stranger has a meticulously preserved (shitty format) cassette collection...and a mint condition Nakamichi Dragon?
* Another random stranger might have a 301?...another a Gyro?
Only thing that matters (I fink) is wot hits our ears “in the context we hear it”?
Absolute quality will always triumph, always, but we all remember that...special...night where the Music was magic.
Hifi..who cares!!
Fair point fella.
Its ALL a flight of fancy, depending on your current pov.
Naa..
fed up being on the roundabout...too many years...go nuclear and do it right, only have to do it once.
Stings at the time, but only do it once.
Did my research, not a drop wasted...trust me.
must be great to kick the transporter to hell lol
The technical limitations of vinyl are readily apparent, and far inferior to those of the best digital - they do not need to be stated.
Convergence is inevitable if both are improving, and they will meet - at the never to be reached - perfection.
But, the ear has evolved with its brain hearing mechanical sounds from all of its environment, and those sounds with their harmonics are all related to mechanical structures which follow specific mathematical laws.
The mechanical failures of records also follow these laws.
However digital distortions and errors have mathematical relationships which are extremely different from these, and are alien to the whole of the human evolutionary ear-brain development. (jitter, aliasing noise and many others).
This I argue is surely why such can be so offensive even when at levels which would be considered benign in analogue sound reproduction.
magiccarpetride
06-04-2018, 22:46
This.
If I had a dollar for each milestone I've reached and told myself "whew, finally I'm here, no more chasing the dragon!"
If I had a dollar for each milestone I've reached and told myself "whew, finally I'm here, no more chasing the dragon!"
Why not instead say to yourself "I'm close enough, I'll chill and enjoy the music"?
Why not instead say to yourself "I'm close enough, I'll chill and enjoy the music"?
Ive been finished for a long time tbh. I know it could be better but I enjoy the sound it makes and that's enough now. Tried this and that but on my budget what I have now is probably better than it should be
magiccarpetride
06-04-2018, 23:26
Why not instead say to yourself "I'm close enough, I'll chill and enjoy the music"?
If I had a dollar for each milestone I've reached and told myself "I'm close enough, I'll chill and enjoy the music"
But when the vinyl is cut it goes through a digital/analogue convertor? And if the recording was made on a digital recorder to begin with? The analohue purity is ruined before it even gets to you.
Now if we talk recordings and records cut completely pre digital (and even pre-solid state) then yes, I agree they have something a 'perfect' digital recording does not have. But we are well into the realms of subjectivism and in operational terms, multiple possibilities of cause there. Maybe that is the proof of the analogue purity theory. I'm guessing not, I may be wrong.
But if you want to be truly purist analogue it is reel to reel you want, not vinyl ;)
It is not the digital recording that is the problem, and yes most post 1980 vinyl is from a digital master. It is the ability of our domestic equipment (DACs) to unravel this information and allow us to hear what was recorded without screwing it up. Remember a turntable is not a DAC and that step is crucial when playing back digital recordings on vinyl. It is when you use a DAC to reconstruct the digital information where it all goes horribly wrong.
Now think back to the early days of digital music and CD players used as the main piece of equipment for playing digital music - the sound was abhorrent, it was shockingly bad. I know I had many players and they were awful.
Wind forward 30 years or more and listen to some of the same CD material ripped to a file and played back via the best DACs available and we are light years ahead in sound quality. Why, because DACs have improved and all the associated equipment. Digital music has now become listenable and many find it their preferred way of listening to music. But the reason I believe that Digital music has become listenable is because it now sounds a little closer to analogue.
I have not heard every DAC on the planet by any means but I can tell you I have heard Chords DAVE DAC and Blu2 M-scaler and this combination is truly entering the analogue realm and to some extent beyond. And this is a system that plays back those original CD recordings either via CD player via m-scaler or as a file based rip. Nothing has changed with the recording. It is simply far better reconstructed in the analogue realm.
Vinyl plays back digital recordings effortlessly in its ability to reproduce the sound in analogue. Digital equipment still struggles IMHO apart from a very few exceptional cases.
The technical limitations of vinyl are readily apparent, and far inferior to those of the best digital - they do not need to be stated.
Convergence is inevitable if both are improving, and they will meet - at the never to be reached - perfection.
But, the ear has evolved with its brain hearing mechanical sounds from all of its environment, and those sounds with their harmonics are all related to mechanical structures which follow specific mathematical laws.
The mechanical failures of records also follow these laws.
However digital distortions and errors have mathematical relationships which are extremely different from these, and are alien to the whole of the human evolutionary ear-brain development. (jitter, aliasing noise and many others).
This I argue is surely why such can be so offensive even when at levels which would be considered benign in analogue sound reproduction.
Spot on Dennis.
jandl100
07-04-2018, 06:52
I'm glad I'm an old codger and can't hear all the awful things that digital music does. :wheniwasaboy:
I can certainly hear the limitations of vinyl playback, though. ;)
I was in a music shop a few years ago and a guy was saying he couldn't bear to listen to CDs because of the constant high pitch whistle.
Go figure.
It is not the digital recording that is the problem, and yes most post 1980 vinyl is from a digital master. It is the ability of our domestic equipment (DACs) to unravel this information and allow us to hear what was recorded without screwing it up. Remember a turntable is not a DAC and that step is crucial when playing back digital recordings on vinyl. It is when you use a DAC to reconstruct the digital information where it all goes horribly wrong.
Now think back to the early days of digital music and CD players used as the main piece of equipment for playing digital music - the sound was abhorrent, it was shockingly bad. I know I had many players and they were awful.
Wind forward 30 years or more and listen to some of the same CD material ripped to a file and played back via the best DACs available and we are light years ahead in sound quality. Why, because DACs have improved and all the associated equipment. Digital music has now become listenable and many find it their preferred way of listening to music. But the reason I believe that Digital music has become listenable is because it now sounds a little closer to analogue.
I have not heard every DAC on the planet by any means but I can tell you I have heard Chords DAVE DAC and Blu2 M-scaler and this combination is truly entering the analogue realm and to some extent beyond. And this is a system that plays back those original CD recordings either via CD player via m-scaler or as a file based rip. Nothing has changed with the recording. It is simply far better reconstructed in the analogue realm.
Vinyl plays back digital recordings effortlessly in its ability to reproduce the sound in analogue. Digital equipment still struggles IMHO apart from a very few exceptional cases.
Great post James,
I agree, theres some magic in digital recordings that modern Dacs like the Dave can reveal.
Listen to the same recording on different dacs and they can sound very different.
Different ways to do it of course,
Different dac chips, different implimentations and design philospphies.
My own Dac converts everything you plug into it to 10x DSD, then lowpass filters that through an output transformer, not a traditional analogue output stage.
DCS, Berkley systems, Bricasti, PS Audio and others all have different approaches to digital, so I dont really believe in the classic ‘one or the other’ vinyl vs digital argument anymore, I can enjoy both whist them not being the same.
And why not? :)
If I had a dollar for each milestone I've reached and told myself "I'm close enough, I'll chill and enjoy the music"
Alex, if you had all those dollars you could have paid for the therapy. :)
I never was that hung up on the differences in sound quality between analogue and digital. I certainly didn't go down the 'sell your turntable and all your LPs' route, and used both formats about equally. However, these days I listen mostly to classical music, where the limitations of analogue in terms of surface noise, getting up to change sides every 20 or so minutes etc, are more apparent. This means that the turntable doesn't get much of a look-in unless I feel nostalgic.
I never was that hung up on the differences in sound quality between analogue and digital. I certainly didn't go down the 'sell your turntable and all your LPs' route, and used both formats about equally. However, these days I listen mostly to classical music, where the limitations of analogue in terms of surface noise, getting up to change sides every 20 or so minutes etc, are more apparent. This means that the turntable doesn't get much of a look-in unless I feel nostalgic.
I think the lower noise floor and lack of vinyl surface noise certainly makes digital more appealing for classical music and the fact most new classical music is released either as a download or CD. Not much makes its way to vinyl.
Firebottle
07-04-2018, 08:10
Great post James,
I agree, theres some magic in digital recordings that modern Dacs like the Dave can reveal.
Listen to the same recording on different dacs and they can sound very different.
Different ways to do it of course,
Different dac chips, different implimentations and design philospphies.
My own Dac converts everything you plug into it to 10x DSD, then lowpass filters that through an output transformer, not a traditional analogue output stage.
DCS, Berkley systems, Bricasti and others all have different approaches to digital, so I dont really believe in the classic ‘one or the other’ vinyl vs digital argument anymore, I can enjoy both whist them not being the same.
And why not? :)
I'm in agreement here. The important thing with analogue re-construction is not screwing the phase relationships, essentially use gentle filters, however they are implemented. The Bel Canto is in that camp.
With vinyl the best I have heard is direct to disc recording, no tape, ADC or DAC. utterly sublime. James you are in for a treat :)
paulf-2007
07-04-2018, 13:21
No, that's exactly what I found going from a Nagaoka MP11 to an MP50 (which is arguably the best MM cart you can buy). Less euphoric, more like digital. To an extent, the baby went out with the bathwater.
I had a listen to Marco's SL1200 when he had some fancy Ortofon MC on it and that was the same. So close to his CD player in character it was uncanny. I didn't see the point. When he changed it to a fancy Denon, then you could hear why vinyl is worth the bother.
When I said my vinyl and digital were much the same, people were saying my vinyl set up wasn't all that good. Well up yours to those people, my vinyl set up is the dogs danglies:lol:
paulf-2007
07-04-2018, 13:28
But when the vinyl is cut it goes through a digital/analogue convertor? And if the recording was made on a digital recorder to begin with? The analohue purity is ruined before it even gets to you.
Now if we talk recordings and records cut completely pre digital (and even pre-solid state) then yes, I agree they have something a 'perfect' digital recording does not have. But we are well into the realms of subjectivism and in operational terms, multiple possibilities of cause there. Maybe that is the proof of the analogue purity theory. I'm guessing not, I may be wrong.
But if you want to be truly purist analogue it is reel to reel you want, not vinyl ;)reel to reel is the best I've ever heard but too late for me to get into.
I never was that hung up on the differences in sound quality between analogue and digital. I certainly didn't go down the 'sell your turntable and all your LPs' route, and used both formats about equally. However, these days I listen mostly to classical music, where the limitations of analogue in terms of surface noise, getting up to change sides every 20 or so minutes etc, are more apparent. This means that the turntable doesn't get much of a look-in unless I feel nostalgic.
I fell for the hype when CD hit in the 80s and sold all mine, record player and all. :doh:
(Ok, I officially feel old now...)
My second stab at vinyl is one Im glad I made, happily I’ve got all the recordings THAT ACTUALLY MATTERED* back again.
* And thats just the thing, isn’t it?
Ask yourself...Why do these things from your past take on the importance they do?
For me...
understanding that it’s just your brain making a connection with something that made you feel good 20 odd years ago... is the key to wisdom Grasshopper...
Taking stock of the good stuff thats around you right now is a good thing, and led me to embrace Tidal and Spotify.
Digitals not a bad word folks, the musics the important bit.
Happily enjoying vinyl AND digital in my system... feel lucky and it’s all good.
magiccarpetride
07-04-2018, 15:59
Alex, if you had all those dollars you could have paid for the therapy. :)
That was below the belt. I thought we're all gentlemen here, no?
magiccarpetride
07-04-2018, 16:02
I never was that hung up on the differences in sound quality between analogue and digital. I certainly didn't go down the 'sell your turntable and all your LPs' route, and used both formats about equally. However, these days I listen mostly to classical music, where the limitations of analogue in terms of surface noise, getting up to change sides every 20 or so minutes etc, are more apparent. This means that the turntable doesn't get much of a look-in unless I feel nostalgic.
In my imaginary world of peace and happiness, there are two differences between good vinyl and good digital:
1. I can crank up the volume with vinyl to extreme levels, and it still sounds lush and pleasant. Cranking up the volume to extreme levels with digital makes me cringe a bit.
2. I can listen to vinyl for hours without any perceptible fatiguing. With digital, after an hour or so, I feel like I need to shut it down and go outside, get some fresh air.
Chew on that!
That was below the belt. I thought we're all gentlemen here, no?
Oh I thought you would be self-aware about the affliction.
That was below the belt. I thought we're all gentlemen here, no?
Alex,
been reading your posts here in AOS here for a number of years...
Obviously your a human being, with family and stuff, but you always seem to be trying to figure out the “Big Questions” with regards to hifi, to the extent that you try to shut down people that talk about anything other than your own viewpoint?
Seriously, are you conducting some kind of a long term Social study on technology addiction (thinking your being cleverer than most?) or are you a genuine hifi/music lover just unhappy with his system?
I personally have replied to a lot of your posts...lots...with what I’ve learned over 30+ years of Hifi experience and hoping to share some experience with you?
Speak up,
Where you genuinely at Hifi wise man, I’d like to know and always happy to share :) but its difficult cos your repeating yourself and (no offence) but your beginning to sound like a broken record.
That was below the belt. I thought we're all gentlemen here, no?
I'm common as muck, meself.
In my imaginary world of peace and happiness, there are two differences between good vinyl and good digital:
1. I can crank up the volume with vinyl to extreme levels, and it still sounds lush and pleasant. Cranking up the volume to extreme levels with digital makes me cringe a bit.
2. I can listen to vinyl for hours without any perceptible fatiguing. With digital, after an hour or so, I feel like I need to shut it down and go outside, get some fresh air.
Chew on that!
Neither holds true for me. I tend to listen at relatively low levels anyway, but I've certainly never found digital to be any more fatiguing than vinyl.
magiccarpetride
07-04-2018, 17:38
Alex,
been reading your posts here in AOS here for a number of years...
Obviously your a human being, with family and stuff, but you always seem to be trying to figure out the “Big Questions” with regards to hifi, to the extent that you try to shut down people that talk about anything other than your own viewpoint?
Seriously, are you conducting some kind of a long term Social study on technology addiction (thinking your being cleverer than most?) or are you a genuine hifi/music lover just unhappy with his system?
I personally have replied to a lot of your posts...lots...with what I’ve learned over 30+ years of Hifi experience and hoping to share some experience with you?
Speak up,
Where you genuinely at Hifi wise man, I’d like to know and always happy to share :) but its difficult cos your repeating yourself and (no offence) but your beginning to sound like a broken record.
If so, #############################.
I enjoy good discussion, but at the same time am not interested in reaching that plateau of fulfillment and satisfaction. Always interested in not leaving any stone unturned. I know it is upsetting to the apple cart, but I just can't help it.
I know it is not possible to disassociate intellectual enquiry from the personality traits, but I am always hopeful that in here we're discussing ideas and concepts, not personalities. Personalities bore me, and I am not interested in any ad hominem.
But if you're honestly pursuing intellectual enquiry, it is very hard to not appear flippant and as if you're taking the piss. And then people latch on you and your personality, which is a tremendous waste of time.
So in my case, I like to explore things, to continue with a playful enquiry. It may upset some people, but you can't please the world, so I'm at peace with that state of affairs.
I enjoy good discussion, but at the same time am not interested in reaching that plateau of fulfillment and satisfaction. Always interested in not leaving any stone unturned. I know it is upsetting to the apple cart, but I just can't help it.
I know it is not possible to disassociate intellectual enquiry from the personality traits, but I am always hopeful that in here we're discussing ideas and concepts, not personalities. Personalities bore me, and I am not interested in any ad hominem.
But if you're honestly pursuing intellectual enquiry, it is very hard to not appear flippant and as if you're taking the piss. And then people latch on you and your personality, which is a tremendous waste of time.
So in my case, I like to explore things, to continue with a playful enquiry. It may upset some people, but you can't please the world, so I'm at peace with that state of affairs.
Playfuls a good word, like and respect that.
Thanks for the explaination Alex, you didn’t need to give it but my understanding is better now that you have.
In this Game for some time now, but always happy to contribute and learn. :)
magiccarpetride
07-04-2018, 19:38
Playfuls a good word, like and respect that.
Thanks for the explaination Alex, you didn’t need to give it but my understanding is better now that you have.
In this Game for some time now, but always happy to learn. :)
You've always been an awesome partner in crime, I'm sorry if I've given you the wrong whiff of trying to mess with anyone here. Chalk it up to my insatiable curiosity, which can get super annoying -- just ask my friends and colleagues ;)
You've always been an awesome partner in crime, I'm sorry if I've given you the wrong whiff of trying to mess with anyone here. Chalk it up to my insatiable curiosity, which can get super annoying -- just ask my friends and colleagues ;)
Awesome. :)
Now I understand (not that THAT matters) dont ever change...
Always good have a strong voice coming from good intentions.
I don't see how intellectual enquiry can be ruled out of this pursuit, or even general life itself, and we really need it with what is being extolled in the media currently.
This pursuit necessitates it in several areas; science, engineering, biology, sociology, and psychology, which inevitably involving personality traits.
We all have 'erroneous zones', (psychological foibles), and in life run the risk of these being exposed in our interaction with others. This is a part of everyday life and we must learn to deal with it, and use error detection to improve ourselves.
But deliberate ad hominem should be illegal IMO, as also should pissing contests.
magiccarpetride
08-04-2018, 00:48
I don't see how intellectual enquiry can be ruled out of this pursuit, or even general life itself, and we really need it with what is being extolled in the media currently.
This pursuit necessitates it in several areas; science, engineering, biology, sociology, and psychology, which inevitably involving personality traits.
We all have 'erroneous zones', (psychological foibles), and in life run the risk of these being exposed in our interaction with others. This is a part of everyday life and we must learn to deal with it, and use error detection to improve ourselves.
But deliberate ad hominem should be illegal IMO, as also should pissing contests.
Good point. Disruptive behaviour is rude, but sometimes necessary in order to dismiss with prescribed ways of thinking. Anyone not following prescribed ways is always deemed inappropriate, often times dangerous and unwanted. But I for one don't see any advantage in following prescribed ways. Those ways are certainly not being prescribed in order to make things better for me personally. Those prescribed ways are always and invariably attempts to establish control and to rule by the terror of majority (or consensus).
I say screw that!
Good point. Disruptive behaviour is rude, but sometimes necessary in order to dismiss with prescribed ways of thinking. Anyone not following prescribed ways is always deemed inappropriate, often times dangerous and unwanted. But I for one don't see any advantage in following prescribed ways. Those ways are certainly not being prescribed in order to make things better for me personally. Those prescribed ways are always and invariably attempts to establish control and to rule by the terror of majority (or consensus).
I say screw that!
Damn straight! And there's nothing wrong with the occasional pissing contest providing it is all in good fun. Why are people so over-sensitive these days? The feminisation of society?
I don't see disruptive behaviour as always intrinsically rude, it may well save many people much trouble by showing them errors in their thinking. I also do not see sensitivity as a specifically feminine trait; I am sensitive, but also strong I believe, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Surely sensitivity is awareness of ever subtler or finer inputs, and that is a prerequisite for greater depth of analysis.
We need hereticism more than ever IMO with large powerful bodies steamrolling out their agendas with little concern for those who buy them, much of it based on 'Fake Truths'.
'Over-sensitive', not sensitive.
Over-sensitive is never good.
'Over-sensitive', not sensitive.
Over-sensitive is never good.
And 'hereticism' isn't even a word!
Stratmangler
08-04-2018, 11:39
And 'hereticism' isn't even a word!
Hereticism comes across as one of those made up words used to make the user come across as sounding intelligent, but usually fails to do so.
It's an "ism" so it sounds good.
Stratmangler
08-04-2018, 11:40
'Over-sensitive', not sensitive.
Over-sensitive is never good.
Why the hyphenation?
Oversensitive shouldn't be hyphenated.
Apropos of nothing particularly, the tread title reminded me of Lou Reed's definition of jazz-rock:
'If you can't do good rock, and you can't do good jazz, why not put the two together and make one real piece of shit?'
magiccarpetride
08-04-2018, 15:03
Apropos of nothing particularly, the tread title reminded me of Lou Reed's definition of jazz-rock:
'If you can't do good rock, and you can't do good jazz, why not put the two together and make one real piece of shit?'
:lol:
magiccarpetride
08-04-2018, 15:05
Damn straight! And there's nothing wrong with the occasional pissing contest providing it is all in good fun. Why are people so over-sensitive these days? The feminisation of society?
My wife keeps telling me that if I don't have anything particularly nice to say, better to say nothing. But my objection is that then we just part the red sea for assholes, remaining silent, making them think that they're always right.
Stratmangler
08-04-2018, 15:20
my objection is that then we just part the red sea for assholes, remaining silent, making them think that they're always right.
Thus starts many bun fight ...
Objecting, that is.
It's far more interesting watching what happens when nobody responds, and they start digging a hole for themselves.
Why the hyphenation?
.
Because I like hyphenation. :)
Stratmangler
08-04-2018, 16:36
Because I like hyphenation. :)
That's a reasoned and reasonable response :)
Have it your way, incorrect as it is .....
walpurgis
08-04-2018, 16:38
Because I like hyphenation. :)
Maybe people are being over-sensitive, to oversensitive having a hyphen.
It's inexcusable I know.
I will try to hyphenate only where appropriate in future.
walpurgis
08-04-2018, 16:41
And 'hereticism' isn't even a word!
I know. It should be hereticity.
magiccarpetride
08-04-2018, 16:53
Thus starts many bun fight ...
Objecting, that is.
It's far more interesting watching what happens when nobody responds, and they start digging a hole for themselves.
I'm not a big fan of that scenario. Because assholes' main capability is digging a hole for themselves, and then it is always us, innocent bystanders, who have to pull their asses out of fire. I'm sick and tired of doing that.
Stratmangler
08-04-2018, 17:02
I'm not a big fan of that scenario. Because assholes' main capability is digging a hole for themselves, and then it is always us, innocent bystanders, who have to pull their asses out of fire. I'm sick and tired of doing that.
Let them dig their hole and leave them there in it.
They'll learn quickly enough that it does nothing but make them look foolish, and start to behave sensibly in future.
magiccarpetride
08-04-2018, 17:17
Let them dig their hole and leave them there in it.
They'll learn quickly enough that it does nothing but make them look foolish, and start to behave sensibly in future.
OK, I'll try that and will report back.
English is a very flexible language, and I think that hereticism is a reasonable flexing, most knowing what I mean.
I am not trying to be seen as intelligent, I have nothing to prove in that direction (according to Career Analysts Ltd), and I resent the inference that I am pretentious. This is both wrong and ad hominem. Most who know me regard me as exceptionally authentic and self effacing to the point of self deprivation.
The trouble with differentiating high sensitivity from oversensitivity is that a reference level needs to be established, rather like the comment on putting sugar in someone's tea and they saying "Not too much sugar", useless unless one knows what is the right amount.
It seems to me that hereticity is an adjective referring to the trait in character of an individual.
Those who 'have the water parted for them', often do not notice and are oblivious to the resentment they arouse in others with their arrogant attitude; the Arrogant Expansive Neurotics. (Horney).
The last few posts on the previous page remind me of just how much I prefer dealing with mature people.
magiccarpetride
09-04-2018, 03:13
English is a very flexible language, and I think that hereticism is a reasonable flexing, most knowing what I mean.
I am not trying to be seen as intelligent, I have nothing to prove in that direction (according to Career Analysts Ltd), and I resent the inference that I am pretentious. This is both wrong and ad hominem. Most who know me regard me as exceptionally authentic and self effacing to the point of self deprivation.
The trouble with differentiating high sensitivity from oversensitivity is that a reference level needs to be established, rather like the comment on putting sugar in someone's tea and they saying "Not too much sugar", useless unless one knows what is the right amount.
It seems to me that hereticity is an adjective referring to the trait in character of an individual.
Those who 'have the water parted for them', often do not notice and are oblivious to the resentment they arouse in others with their arrogant attitude; the Arrogant Expansive Neurotics. (Horney).
The last few posts on the previous page remind me of just how much I prefer dealing with mature people.
Bullies are counting on us being evasive and submissive. Try and stand up to a bully and you will see what a chicken he truly is. But decent people still abound in our society, so they politely make way for the bullies, for assholes with booming voices, for the inconsiderate. I like to stand up to them. Show them what worthless pieces of shit they really are. Once they piss their pants and shit their underwear, they tend to change their tune.
Needless to say, I'm not the most popular person in my town.
My only talent is self-deprecation, and I'm not much good at that.
Damn straight! And there's nothing wrong with the occasional pissing contest providing it is all in good fun. Why are people so over-sensitive these days? The feminisation of society?
Absolutely! Trouble is, it needs to be fun for ALL concerned, not just for a few who find it funny... In that respect, the participants (and especially the person who's the butt of the joke) need to feel that they're being laughed WITH, rather than laughed at.
Otherwise, the "pissing contest" isn't good-natured [hyphenation necessary], and turns into something rather more sinister. On AoS, we welcome the former, which is classed as 'banter', but always frown upon the latter.
Marco.
I agree entirely Marco, we need to respect how the target perceives the ridicule, they may be searing in self doubt about their value and this may not be noticed, or even worse played upon.
It is reassuring though, my having been regarded as rather odd by many social groups, to see what their adhesion to orthodoxy has produced for them in their lives; they often pay a price for conformity.
I watched a film on Janis Joplin last night, she was ridiculed by her peers and full of self doubt, and I guess torturing herself quite a lot.
If someone disagrees with me, I just assume they're wrong, but more to be pitied than censured.
Or, as Alice Roosevelt Longworth said, 'If you can't say anything good about someone, come right over here and sit next to me'.
This has strayed very far away from the original post by the willy waving intellectuals.:rolleyes:
I think you may have missed the irony in Joe's post, Jim! ;)
Marco.
Spectral Morn
09-04-2018, 09:12
Apropos of nothing particularly, the tread title reminded me of Lou Reed's definition of jazz-rock:
'If you can't do good rock, and you can't do good jazz, why not put the two together and make one real piece of shit?'
And that coming from one of the most overated musicians next to the Beatles and Stones. I would readily exchange Return to Forever or George Duke etc for a minute of any of Mr Reeds dirges. In fact even a second of the Velvets is too much for me personally.
I think you may have missed the irony in Joe's post, Jim! ;)
Marco.
Oh, was he meaning me? I'm not an intellectual.
And that coming from one of the most overated musicians next to the Beatles and Stones. I would readily exchange Return to Forever or George Duke etc for a minute of any of Mr Reeds dirges. In fact even a second of the Velvets is too much for me personally.
Well. there you go, no accounting for taste etc etc; there's even some people who don't like Shakespeare. I went to a Return to Forever gig way back in the early '70s. Once was more than enough. By contrast, I'll never tire of listening to the Velvets.
Still,
Spectral Morn
09-04-2018, 09:42
Well. there you go, no accounting for taste etc etc; there's even some people who don't like Shakespeare. I went to a Return to Forever gig way back in the early '70s. Once was more than enough. By contrast, I'll never tire of listening to the Velvets.
Still,
Each to their own, and it would be a boring place if we all liked the same stuff.
Shame you didn't like it I would love to have seen them live.
Well. there you go, no accounting for taste etc etc; there's even some people who don't like Shakespeare.
Indeed (me included), as it BORES me to death...!! Shocking, isn't it?;)
Marco.
Oh, was he meaning me? I'm not an intellectual.
I thought you were doing a PhD?
If having a doctorate does not make you an intellectual then what does?
He's a modest chap is Joe.
Marco.
I thought you were doing a PhD?
If having a doctorate does not make you an intellectual then what does?
I haven't got the doctorate yet. My daughter (who has got a doctorate) is an intellectual. I proof-read her book and half the words were incomprehensible to me without the help of a dictionary.
It's handy to have these smart-arses around as you can use their brain for thinking instead of yours. I have a work colleague I use for that. Freed from the heavy lifting my brain can spend its time pondering the more mundane things in life.
At some point they'll get bored of being smart but until then I say milk it for all it's worth.
walpurgis
09-04-2018, 14:18
I haven't got the doctorate yet. My daughter (who has got a doctorate) is an intellectual. I proof-read her book and half the words were incomprehensible to me without the help of a dictionary.
She's an acedemic. An intellectual is not necessarily the same thing.
I thought that after I'd posted. But 'intellectual' is one of those indefinite terms.
Yer OED has:
'Possessing a high degree of understanding or intelligence; given to pursuits that exercise the intellect; spec. devoted to academic or cultural interests.'
Which I think describes my daughter, if not myself.
; given to pursuits that exercise the intellect; spec. devoted to academic or cultural interests.'
.
I watched Lethal Weapon 2 last night and had a few cans of Guinness. So I'm deffo ticking that box.
Pigmy Pony
09-04-2018, 18:08
I watched Lethal Weapon 2 last night and had a few cans of Guinness. So I'm deffo ticking that box.
Could you follow the plot? I gave up about half an hour in.
Could you follow the plot? I gave up about half an hour in.
There isn't really a plot as such so there isn't anything to follow. Irredeemably bad men are doing bad things, and have to be stopped. That's all you need to know. It's not exactly 'The Big Sleep'.
Pigmy Pony
09-04-2018, 19:09
That's where I was going wrong, trying to follow a plot that didn't exist. Clever lot those Americans.
What's 'The Big Sleep'? Is that the sequel to 'Sleepless in Seattle'?
What's 'The Big Sleep'? Is that the sequel to 'Sleepless in Seattle'?
That's right. It's actually a trilogy that finishes with 'Good Morning Vietnam.'
It'll be 'Goodnight Vienna' to you two, if you don't shut it :eyebrows:;)
Marco.
paulf-2007
09-04-2018, 22:18
Each to their own, and it would be a boring place if we all liked the same stuff.
Shame you didn't like it I would love to have seen them live.i saw them perform the romantic warrior album. It was note and sound perfect to the recording. I can also listen to Lou Reed, what does that make me?
I remember a BBC programme many years ago in which an academic stated that there is a world of difference between an intellectual and an academic.
I have had about five encounters with academia in which the personnel have shown themselves to be actually lacking in intellect, and rather conceited and arrogant, these all during my attempts to study for a degree. They really do not like having their flawed reasoning or poor understanding exposed, which I found a surprise, my thinking that they would humbly grasp an opportunity to show devotion to the pursuit of truth.
IMO it is only a very few academics who have a humble self effacing authentic devotion to seeking truth, and beneath them are numerous mediocres, there for the role and its apparent social status and esteem.
It is generally recognised that one only needs an IQ of about 115 - 120 to get a 1st class honours degree, the rest is work.
Cathy Newman's saga with Jordan Peterson on C4 a few weeks ago illustrated how someone with a 1st class Honours degree from a very highly regarded university, Oxford, can actually exhibit very poor ability to be objective, or comprehend subtle abstract things in argument.
To me an intellectual is a person who seeks truth in all areas, spanning all disciplines to establish further truths, and it comprises intelligence and knowledge. An academic specialises in his area and becomes an expert in that; an expert knows more and more about less and less.
ianlenco
10-04-2018, 10:21
01001001 00100000 01101100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100001 01101100 01101111 01100111 01110101 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100100 01101001 01100111 01101001 01110100 01100001 01101100 00101110 00100000 00100000 01000010 01101111 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101001 01110010 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01100011 01100101
Stratmangler
10-04-2018, 10:32
01001001 00100000 01101100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100001 01101100 01101111 01100111 01110101 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100100 01101001 01100111 01101001 01110100 01100001 01101100 00101110 00100000 00100000 01000010 01101111 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101001 01110010 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01100011 01100101
01001001 00100000 01110111 01101111 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110111 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110100 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101110 01110011 01101100 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101100 01100001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110100 00100000 00111010 00101001
ianlenco
10-04-2018, 10:45
01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100111
Stratmangler
10-04-2018, 10:51
01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100111
We'll see :)
Stratmangler
10-04-2018, 10:54
57 65 20 63 6f 75 6c 64 20 6f 66 20 63 6f 75 72 73 65 20 73 68 69 66 74 20 62 61 73 65 73 2c 20 77 68 69 63 68 20 63 6f 75 6c 64 20 62 65 20 66 75 6e 20 3a 44
Firebottle
10-04-2018, 11:30
Oh good old ASCII, brings back memories.
:)
i saw them perform the romantic warrior album. It was note and sound perfect to the recording. I can also listen to Lou Reed, what does that make me?
A goddamn fence-sitter.
It is generally recognised that one only needs an IQ of about 115 - 120 to get a 1st class honours degree, the rest is work.
I've never had my IQ measured (maybe at school; we did some IQ-type tests, but if so, I can't remember/wasn't told the results). When I did my first degree, many years ago now, only two of my cohort got firsts. One was clearly a brilliant scholar, but prone to emotional ups and downs. The other was a quiet bloke (he was in my tutorial group for two years, and I don't remember him ever saying anything) who obviously just grafted away. I'm a mouthy Northerner, and quite happy to ramble on in seminars and tutorials if no-one else says anything, but I'm not so keen on hard work, which is probably why I didn't get a first.
As far as academics are concerned, as well as my degree and post-grad studies, I worked with them for 20-odd years. They, like the general population, were a very mixed bunch. Some were your typical absent-minded professor types, whose interpersonal skills were, to put it politely, limited; others were self-publicists, but most were genuinely humble about their own abilities, and saw their achievements, up to and including Nobel prizes, as very much the result of team efforts rather than their own brilliance.
paulf-2007
10-04-2018, 12:15
A goddamn fence-sitter.
Now that is something I am not. I won't be drawn into this intellect/academic discussion, all I will say is that it's not difficult to study and pass exams, but having common sense is not something many of these people that think they are clever have little of.
all I will say is that it's not difficult to study and pass exams, but having common sense is not something many of these people that think they are clever have little of.
I think the second part of the above has too many negatives. As written, it doesn't make sense!
. I'm a mouthy Northerner, and quite happy to ramble on in seminars and tutorials if no-one else says anything, but I'm not so keen on hard work, which is probably why I didn't get a first.
.
That's me too. When I was an undergraduate you would always have the bulk of the people who would sit there and say nothing whilst only one or two would contribute. One time due to other factors I had not done the required reading but figured I would go along anyway, take a back seat in the discussion and let someone else take the strain for a change.
Of course the tutor was used to me having a lot to say so when she couldn't get two words out of the rest of them she turned to me for contributions. My ignorance was exposed and I got a bollocking for not doing the prep. I mean, how is that fair?
That's me too. When I was an undergraduate you would always have the bulk of the people who would sit there and say nothing whilst only one or two would contribute. One time due to other factors I had not done the required reading but figured I would go along anyway, take a back seat in the discussion and let someone else take the strain for a change.
Of course the tutor was used to me having a lot to say so when she couldn't get two words out of the rest of them she turned to me for contributions. My ignorance was exposed and I got a bollocking for not doing the reading. I mean, how is that fair?
Amazingly, almost exactly the same thing happened to me. I 'forgot' about a seminar, but the tutor nabbed me in the bar and dragged me along. The usual silence from everyone, so I started babbling away. The tutor let me carry on for a few minutes, then said 'Have you actually read this text, Joe?' to which I replied 'No, but then I wasn't intending to come to the seminar'.
paulf-2007
10-04-2018, 12:43
I think the second part of the above has too many negatives. As written, it doesn't make sense!
Haha, I blame memory loss, I meant much of rather than little of, as you said too many negatives. Failed again
Amazingly, almost exactly the same thing happened to me. I 'forgot' about a seminar, but the tutor nabbed me in the bar and dragged me along. The usual silence from everyone, so I started babbling away. The tutor let me carry on for a few minutes, then said 'Have you actually read this text, Joe?' to which I replied 'No, but then I wasn't intending to come to the seminar'.
Seminars were optional for us so I never bothered. Tutorial attendance were 'compulsory' but you could get away with missing about 1 in 3 without anyone being bothered.
I went to one lecture and it was a complete waste of time, just a bloke rambling for about an hour, so I never bothered after that. Academia really is money for old rope.
My criticisms were a result of experience in universities.
I have worked for much of my life with graduate (and more) engineers and scientists, and found most great to get on with, and a wonderful team effort and atmosphere often prevailed in the working environment.
anthonyTD
11-04-2018, 08:38
Hi All,
Only read through some of this thread, and not sure its been mentioned but; whether digital, or Analog front end, ALL comes out Analog at the end, ie; the speaker is an analog device, and therefore; it reproduces All signal it is given in Analog, so, what ever theories one can come up with" as to what makes the diffrence between Analog, and Digital replay, just remember, you hear it all in Analog!:)
walpurgis
11-04-2018, 08:42
Stands to reason. Ears are analogue devices. :)
anthonyTD
11-04-2018, 08:53
Exactly!:)
Stands to reason. Ears are analogue devices. :)
Yes, and the measurements of their foibles show that they are far more corrupting of the signal than other analogue devices, and hence I would argue much more dominant in changing the sound..
anthonyTD
11-04-2018, 10:17
I do agree though that certain aspects of Digital have a profound affect on the final outcome of the sound that we hear, ie; the "DAC, and Clocking" play a major role!
I think Dennis was talking about 'speakers.
Whether it is analogue or digital, it all comes down to a continuously varying voltage moving drivers and then moving air. Even a 'digital' signal is just a continuously varying voltage, exactly the same as the 'analogue' signal is. We actually listen to electricity, not 'music'. The only real way to hear music is at a live, unamplified performance. Or singing in the shower.
The only real way to hear music is at a live, unamplified performance. Or singing in the shower.
I can assure you that my singing in the shower is not 'musical' in any generally understood sense of the word.
I can assure you that my singing in the shower is not 'musical' in any generally understood sense of the word.
You need more practice then. I sound like I'm channelling the ghost of Sinatra himself :D
anthonyTD
11-04-2018, 11:33
:eek::lol:
You need more practice then. I sound like I'm channelling the ghost of Sinatra himself :D
Yes sorry, I was talking about speakers, and I am also amazed at what they do; bits of plastic rubber, metal, and wood producing even a semblance of the musical performance,
Yes sorry, I was talking about speakers, and I am also amazed at what they do; bits of plastic rubber, metal, and wood producing even a semblance of the musical performance,
I think the same about vinyl replay - a small piece of gemstone dragged through a 'wiggly' furrow in a piece of plastic. I'm amazed it sounds as good as it does.
magiccarpetride
12-04-2018, 03:06
I think the same about vinyl replay - a small piece of gemstone dragged through a 'wiggly' furrow in a piece of plastic. I'm amazed it sounds as good as it does.
Yes, all bets would be that such tiny rock glued onto some dinky metal tube whose posterior end is wiggling inside the body of a cartridge cannot possibly produce anything other than some maddening screeching noise. And yet, it can somehow generate the most liquid, smooth and elegant musical sound. How's that possible? I don't think anyone really knows. If someone knew, they would be able to design a sophisticated robotic hand that would manipulate the cantilever, yanking it at various frequencies left, right, up, down, and generate all those amazing reproductions of an orchestra playing in a concert hall. So you wouldn't need vinyl grooves spinning at 33 rpm... Can such robotic hand be designed? I doubt it.
Mysteries of the universe...
Yes, all bets would be that such tiny rock glued onto some dinky metal tube whose posterior end is wiggling inside the body of a cartridge cannot possibly produce anything other than some maddening screeching noise. And yet, it can somehow generate the most liquid, smooth and elegant musical sound. How's that possible? I don't think anyone really knows. If someone knew, they would be able to design a sophisticated robotic hand that would manipulate the cantilever, yanking it at various frequencies left, right, up, down, and generate all those amazing reproductions of an orchestra playing in a concert hall. So you wouldn't need vinyl grooves spinning at 33 rpm... Can such robotic hand be designed? I doubt it.
Mysteries of the universe...
Yes it can and it has been - it's called digital audio.
But people tend to prefer the rock in the groove.
Mysteries of the universe....
anthonyTD
12-04-2018, 10:32
A Microphone does a pretty good job too!;)
Yes, all bets would be that such tiny rock glued onto some dinky metal tube whose posterior end is wiggling inside the body of a cartridge cannot possibly produce anything other than some maddening screeching noise. And yet, it can somehow generate the most liquid, smooth and elegant musical sound. How's that possible? I don't think anyone really knows. If someone knew, they would be able to design a sophisticated robotic hand that would manipulate the cantilever, yanking it at various frequencies left, right, up, down, and generate all those amazing reproductions of an orchestra playing in a concert hall. So you wouldn't need vinyl grooves spinning at 33 rpm... Can such robotic hand be designed? I doubt it.
Mysteries of the universe...
magiccarpetride
12-04-2018, 19:28
Yes it can and it has been - it's called digital audio.
But people tend to prefer the rock in the groove.
Mysteries of the universe....
Different cartridges/tonearms will produce different signal by reading the same microgroove. Different CD players will produce different signal by reading the same digitally stored information. Some people pay a lot of money hoping that the resulting sound will be to their liking.
Mysterious...
Different cartridges/tonearms will produce different signal by reading the same microgroove. Different CD players will produce different signal by reading the same digitally stored information. Some people pay a lot of money hoping that the resulting sound will be to their liking.
Mysterious...
But it isn't. Well, I agree about the 'liking' bit is as that's psychological and a very complex system with lots of variables and unknowns; but the reasons why cd players and cartridges don't sound alike are completely quantifiable. I suppose if you get down to one type of capacitor sounding different to another, maybe that is not known why. Or maybe it is? I don't know about that.
magiccarpetride
12-04-2018, 20:05
But it isn't. Well, I agree about the 'liking' bit is as that's psychological and a very complex system with lots of variables and unknowns; but the reasons why cd players and cartridges don't sound alike are completely quantifiable. I suppose if you get down to one type of capacitor sounding different to another, maybe that is not known why. Or maybe it is? I don't know about that.
And yet things are super simple. I shudder to think what would happen if things weren't that simple...
And yet things are super simple. I shudder to think what would happen if things weren't that simple...
I said the signal was simple. I didn't say any of the rest of it was. But if you start out thinking the signal is complex then you are not in the best spot for travelling to Dublin.
magiccarpetride
12-04-2018, 20:57
I said the signal was simple. I didn't say any of the rest of it was. But if you start out thinking the signal is complex then you are not in the best spot for travelling to Dublin.
Yeah, that's where I get mighty confused. To my way of thinking (layman's way), to capture so many sounds and their higher order harmonics plus their relative position in space etc. must result in a phenomenally complex signal.
Yeah, that's where I get mighty confused. To my way of thinking (layman's way), to capture so many sounds and their higher order harmonics plus their relative position in space etc. must result in a phenomenally complex signal.
Well look at reel to reel. It is just metal magnetized to varying degrees. Vinyl is just a continuous groove cut into plastic. A CD is just pits and lands, a music file just noughts and ones. Whatever the medium it is just a simple instruction to vary voltage with time. The difficulties come when you transfer the signal it carries from point a to point b in order to listen to it, lots of nasties hitch a ride along the way and dealing with them all effectively is non-trivial, as they say.
magiccarpetride
12-04-2018, 21:24
Well look at reel to reel. It is just metal magnetized to varying degrees. Vinyl is just a continuous groove cut into plastic. A CD is just pits and lands, a music file just noughts and ones. Whatever the medium it is just a simple instruction to vary voltage with time. The difficulties come when you transfer the signal it carries from point a to point b in order to listen to it, lots of nasties hitch a ride along the way and dealing with them all effectively is non-trivial, as they say.
To me, a simple signal is text stored on either magnetic, or optical medium. If I type a few paragraphs, and then store them on USB drive, then take that USB to a friend and he plugs it into his computer and loads it, we'd expect all the words I typed to appear intact, in the same order I typed them. The reader should not remove any characters, nor add any characters, nor jumble any characters.
That's simplicity, the way I see it. A simple signal gets stored and then gets simply restored with 100% accuracy. It never fails (unless the medium gets corrupted along the way, of course).
How come we cannot achieve the same accuracy with musical signal? If, as you say, it is equally brain dead easy to capture and store sound, why is it so devilishly hard to restore it to its original shape without adding or subtracting or jumbling things along the way?
Temporal reasons which the example of text does not require for fidelity.
Playing back the words is only part of the issue. It's like an audio book. One reader is much better at involving you than another even if he was pitch perfect
You don't get many problems with system induced noise and distortion on a text file either. I mean you are not listening to it. It's in no way comparable.
Other things like super tweeters that we shouldn't hear and can't affect anything. But they do. It's a bit of a black art getting it all bang on
magiccarpetride
12-04-2018, 21:43
You don't get many problems with system induced noise and distortion on a text file either. I mean you are not listening to it. It's in no way comparable.
I could get my computer to read back the text I entered and stored. It will work flawlessly. It will not, under any regular circumstances, read the words I typed out of order, or add any other words or remove any words. Because the signal is simple.
I could get my computer to read back the text I entered and stored. It will work flawlessly. It will not, under any regular circumstances, read the words I typed out of order, or add any other words or remove any words. Because the signal is simple.
Through your crappy laptop amp and speakers? Or through your main system? Would it sound to you identical on both? I'm guessing not.
I could get my computer to read back the text I entered and stored. It will work flawlessly. It will not, under any regular circumstances, read the words I typed out of order, or add any other words or remove any words. Because the signal is simple.
But but but..... What you hear bears little relation to what you typed or dicated, you'd need a recording for that. Yes the same words but thats all. Not the same sounds, if indeed there were any sounds in the first place.
magiccarpetride
12-04-2018, 22:03
But but but..... What you hear bears little relation to what you typed or dicated, you'd need a recording for that. Yes the same words but thats all. Not the same sounds, if indeed there were any sounds in the first place.
That is precisely the point. A simple signal is just a string of words. Such simplicity cannot easily result in messed up rendering. So if the sound recording is a simple signal, how come it ends up with all kinds of variations in rendering?
That is precisely the point. A simple signal is just a string of words. Such simplicity cannot easily result in messed up rendering. So if the sound recording is a simple signal, how come it ends up with all kinds of variations in rendering?
Again....for temporal reasons. Bit perfect isn't sufficient.
If there was a studio in the next room, and wires directly from the mic preamps came directly into your room and into your stereo, would you be able to tell if it was live or recorded? Maybe? Maybe not? “Is it live, or is it Memorex?”, was the old commercials, doing that exact test. Ella would sing a high C and break a wine glass, and the tape would do the same! Not necessarily proving it sounds good? I’ve got a Screaming for Vengeance remaster that if you told me the wires came live from the studio next door, I’d believe you! It’s just like setting in the studio, as many here have done. But it’s all amplified music, except the vocals of course, and there are vocals on that album! Vinyl, of course.
But it is easy to see on a scope that the signal coming out does not match the signal going in. Harmonic distortions, crossover distortions, etc., etc., and then there is Digital. You take the waveform and chop it into tens of thousands of pieces, and assign a number to it. Then taking those numbers, try to put it back together. And like dragging a rock around in a groove, it really is amazing that it works at all! And doesn’t sound like a squealing siren. So, you stitch the square waves back together and it looks like stair cases going up and down, so a filter smooths the edges off until it resembles an analog waveform. You’ve got a nice smooth waveform that sounds great! But, it is not an exact match of the signal that went in. Due to averaging, it’s a very close approximation, but not exact.
The thing about our flawed ears, is that we use the same pair for most of our lives. So however weird the sound is once it reaches the brain, it’s what we are used to hearing. So a violin sounds like a violin, and a trumpet sounds like a trumpet.
Russell
If there was a studio in the next room, and wires directly from the mic preamps came directly into your room and into your stereo, would you be able to tell if it was live or recorded? Maybe? Maybe not? “Is it live, or is it Memorex?”, was the old commercials, doing that exact test. Ella would sing a high C and break a wine glass, and the tape would do the same! Not necessarily proving it sounds good? I’ve got a Screaming for Vengeance remaster that if you told me the wires came live from the studio next door, I’d believe you! It’s just like setting in the studio, as many here have done. But it’s all amplified music, except the vocals of course, and there are vocals on that album! Vinyl, of course.
But it is easy to see on a scope that the signal coming out does not match the signal going in. Harmonic distortions, crossover distortions, etc., etc., and then there is Digital. You take the waveform and chop it into tens of thousands of pieces, and assign a number to it. Then taking those numbers, try to put it back together. And like dragging a rock around in a groove, it really is amazing that it works at all! And doesn’t sound like a squealing siren. So, you stitch the square waves back together and it looks like stair cases going up and down, so a filter smooths the edges off until it resembles an analog waveform. You’ve got a nice smooth waveform that sounds great! But, it is not an exact match of the signal that went in. Due to averaging, it’s a very close approximation, but not exact.
The thing about our flawed ears, is that we use the same pair for most of our lives. So however weird the sound is once it reaches the brain, it’s what we are used to hearing. So a violin sounds like a violin, and a trumpet sounds like a trumpet.
Russell
One's ears are not an oscilloscope fortunately.
One's ears are not an oscilloscope fortunately.
Yes it is. I’ve heard very bright, overly detailed stereos before, and it’s quite interesting at first, hearing many fine details. But I find that I grow tired of it quickly, I much before a warmer presentation, which most call colored. Distortion is just a part of life, there will never be audio playback without it.
Russell
But it is easy to see on a scope that the signal coming out does not match the signal going in. Harmonic distortions, crossover distortions, etc., etc., and then there is Digital. You take the waveform and chop it into tens of thousands of pieces, and assign a number to it. Then taking those numbers, try to put it back together. And like dragging a rock around in a groove, it really is amazing that it works at all! And doesn’t sound like a squealing siren. So, you stitch the square waves back together and it looks like stair cases going up and down, so a filter smooths the edges off until it resembles an analog waveform. You’ve got a nice smooth waveform that sounds great! But, it is not an exact match of the signal that went in. Due to averaging, it’s a very close approximation, but not exact.
l
Audiophile myth. It may not be perfectly exact but it is exact enough that any difference is way beyond the threshold of hearing. In terms of producing the analogue waveform exactly, digital is way beyond vinyl. Orders of magnitude better.
Wrong, wrong , wrong.:doh:
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 07:35
Yes it is. I’ve heard very bright, overly detailed stereos before, and it’s quite interesting at first, hearing many fine details. But I find that I grow tired of it quickly, I much before a warmer presentation, which most call colored. Distortion is just a part of life, there will never be audio playback without it.
Russell
A properly detailed sound is a product of transparency and system balance should not be a factor.
Firebottle
13-04-2018, 07:36
Fight fight fight :punch:
Just jesting but James is correct.' Way beyond the threshold of hearing' is just so optimistic.
I've yet to hear a digital system that gives the same spacial information you can get from vinyl and I've heard some of the best.
Fight fight fight :punch:
Just jesting but James is correct.' Way beyond the threshold of hearing' is just so optimistic.
I've yet to hear a digital system that gives the same spacial information you can get from vinyl and I've heard some of the best.
But you making assumptions about the reasons for that which are incorrect. We are not arguing about the outcome (i.e 'the listening') it is the reasons for the outcome where there is disagreement.
jandl100
13-04-2018, 07:44
Well, it all depends what you think you are hearing.
Genuine recorded sounds which for some baffling reason aren't captured by digital, or analog distortion artifacts that you happen to like maybe?
Firebottle
13-04-2018, 07:45
You've lost me there Martin :scratch:
Firebottle
13-04-2018, 07:47
Well, it all depends what you think you are hearing.
Genuine recorded sounds or distortion artifacts that you happen to like maybe?
How can distortion artifacts give such a sense of space and depth? Someone convince me.
Just read a great article on digital and analogue. Its conclusion was analogue was good for audio and digital was good for running computers.:)
jandl100
13-04-2018, 08:02
How can distortion artifacts give such a sense of space and depth? Someone convince me.
Echo-o-o-o-o-oooo
A little additional reverb and most things sound that little bit nicer and more spacious.
The truth is likely to be a little more complicated than that.
Firebottle
13-04-2018, 08:49
Audiophile myth. It may not be perfectly exact but it is exact enough that any difference is way beyond the threshold of hearing. In terms of producing the analogue waveform exactly, digital is way beyond vinyl. Orders of magnitude better.
OK Martin I've got your point, that you have made on numerous posts before.
A digital COPY is a digital copy and is all we need for music storage given adequate bit depth.
However it could be like saying I have xyz vinyl on my shelf, it's no good until it is reproduced on the TT.
Or it's like saying I have a digital copy of SOS in my brain, or other storage media, which is of no use unless it is transmitted or communicated to somebody else.
So analogue and digital convergence must include the replay chain in this instance, otherwise it's very difficult to hear and appreciate it.
:)
A properly detailed sound is a product of transparency and system balance should not be a factor.
You’re right, I should not have used the word bright, but hopefully some of you can attest to my experience that some stereos that are detailed, when you hear them you may notice new things in old recordings, but you find that you are analyzing all the music you play! Listening deeper, for more detail, taking mental notes. That is not the stereo I want to own.
Russell
Audiophile myth. It may not be perfectly exact but it is exact enough that any difference is way beyond the threshold of hearing. In terms of producing the analogue waveform exactly, digital is way beyond vinyl. Orders of magnitude better.
No matter how small distortions get, they are still distortions, it is a fact of life! If there were no noticeable distortions, all stereos would sound exactly the same. And they don’t.
Russell
Well, it all depends what you think you are hearing.
Genuine recorded sounds which for some baffling reason aren't captured by digital, or analog distortion artifacts that you happen to like maybe?
Our hearing has evolved to listen in a distorted aural environment so that is probably why we like a bit of distortion added?
If you stand in a wood on a windy day and listen to 2 birds in different positions you will still be able to judge where they are (behind, to the side or in front) even though you have lots of other noise around you distorting the sound. The brain compensates and you can make a very good assessment of the sound - millions of years of evolution to get to that point.
Introduce digital (last 40 years?) err brain cannot compute. Alien sound which hearing/brain has not evolved yet to compensate for digital waveform. Yes you can hear a sound but it is not natural analogue so still doesn't sound right.
THE CLOSER DIGITAL GETS TO ANALOGUE THE BETTER IT WILL SOUND. Simple:)
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 09:12
Introduce digital (last 40 years?) err brain cannot compute. Alien sound which hearing/brain has not evolved yet to compensate for digital waveform. Yes you can hear a sound but it is not natural analogue so still doesn't sound right.
But we don't listen to 'digital' sound. What comes out of the speakers is pure analogue.
But we don't listen to 'digital' sound. What comes out of the speakers is pure analogue.
No it is a digitised version of the analogue waveform. Yes what comes out of our speakers is analogue but it is reconstructed analogue via a DAC.
I know this will start a fight!
Back when Digital was first coming around, it seems to me I read some articles about adding dither. Anyone else remember that? Do modern digital converters add dither anymore? I’m not even exact on what dither was? It was a long time ago. But basically, they added noise to Digital playback to make it sound more natural. Please, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not even sure what it has to do with the thread? But it’s interesting.
Russell
Dither is adding white noise. Its used usually when you reduce high bit to lower bit recordings, as you get truncation errors which can patternise and become audible and annoying, so dither breaks them up
That wouldn't be a way of adding distortion to digital would it?:lol:
To compare a digital written script with a digital sound file is over simplistic.
The requirements in the former case are relatively limited, and only require the symbols to be in the right order. You can bet that if measured, the words and letters would not be in the exact same position on several compared reconstructed copies, but that is not relevant to the function.
In the case of a sound file there are many more requirements because of the ears capability, despite its limitations.
This thread is interestingly provoking thinking and argument, which is good, but rather than a pissing contest, it is a little like a pissing in the wind contest, but at least some of the piss ends up in the bucket/urinal. :)
jandl100
13-04-2018, 09:57
You’re right, I should not have used the word bright, but hopefully some of you can attest to my experience that some stereos that are detailed, when you hear them you may notice new things in old recordings, but you find that you are analyzing all the music you play! Listening deeper, for more detail, taking mental notes. That is not the stereo I want to own.
Russell
Well, that just shows that not all of us are after the same thing.
I think what you describe there is a stereo I would want to own!
I want to hear what the musicians are doing. Great musicians do everything, every little thing, for a reason, be it a conscious decision or natural musicianship.
An audio system that is intended to smooth that sort of detail over is not one that I would aspire to.
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 09:58
That wouldn't be a way of adding distortion to digital would it?:lol:
One could argue that an RIAA slope increases distortion/noise.
One could argue that an RIAA slope increases distortion/noise.
Speakers are probably adding more distortion than anything else in the music chain.
jandl100
13-04-2018, 10:04
Our hearing has evolved to listen in a distorted aural environment so that is probably why we like a bit of distortion added?
If you stand in a wood on a windy day and listen to 2 birds in different positions you will still be able to judge where they are (behind, to the side or in front) even though you have lots of other noise around you distorting the sound. The brain compensates and you can make a very good assessment of the sound - millions of years of evolution to get to that point.
Introduce digital (last 40 years?) err brain cannot compute. Alien sound which hearing/brain has not evolved yet to compensate for digital waveform. Yes you can hear a sound but it is not natural analogue so still doesn't sound right.
THE CLOSER DIGITAL GETS TO ANALOGUE THE BETTER IT WILL SOUND. Simple:)
I'm not sure where to start on that one!
You're just making stuff up so as to get to your pre-determined conclusion. ;)
My brain computes digitally sourced music very well thank you. :)
I'm not sure where to start on that one!
You're just making stuff up so as to get to your pre-determined conclusion. ;)
My brain computes digitally sourced music very well thank you. :)
Then that's all that matters Jerry.:)
anthonyTD
13-04-2018, 12:38
But if you analyse the final digested waveform, its pure analogue!
No it is a digitised version of the analogue waveform. Yes what comes out of our speakers is analogue but it is reconstructed analogue via a DAC.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 12:54
Does anyone actually know why Vinyl sounds better than Digital?
[emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95] <Brains exploding lol
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 12:57
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
This makes the most sense to me as it's in simple terms I understand [emoji23]
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 12:58
Does anyone actually know why Vinyl sounds better than Digital?
Does it? My records and CD's are on a par for sound quality. i.e., very good.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 12:59
Does it? My records and CD's are on a par for sound quality. i.e., very good.I'm just dropping a grenade in the mix mate. At my house, my Analogue slaps the Digital silly. It'll be different everywhere.
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 13:00
I'm just dropping a grenade in the mix mate. At my house, my Analogue slaps the Digital silly. It'll be different everywhere.
You need better CD playback mate! :D
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 13:02
You need better CD playback mate! :DThe M2TECH has raised the digital side considerably but it's still not a patch on the Analogue. I had resisted the urge to push the digital side until my cousin decided to retire in AntiParos and send me his entire CD collection plus his TV, HIFI system etc. I now have 1000+ CDs on the way from Germany at some point [emoji41]
Think both do different things better, but hard to find a winner.
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 13:16
? It just works............with every CD/DAC combo I've tried.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THETA-TIMEBASE-LINQUE-CONDITIONER-ANTI-JITTER/112919819797?hash=item1a4a8bb615:g:250AAOSw8D1ax61 u
? It just works............with every CD/DAC combo I've tried.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THETA-TIMEBASE-LINQUE-CONDITIONER-ANTI-JITTER/112919819797?hash=item1a4a8bb615:g:250AAOSw8D1ax61 u
Had one of those Geoff. Not bad gizmos
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 13:24
Had one of those Geoff. Not bad gizmos
Got a DIP as well. That works too! I have been known to daisy chain them. That also works.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 13:29
Got a DIP as well. That works too! I have been known to daisy chain them. That also works.What's it do?
Does anyone actually know why Vinyl sounds better than Digital?
[emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95][emoji95] <Brains exploding lol
Define 'better'.
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 13:40
What's it do?
The TLC and DIP are jitter busters. Some will tell you they are not necessary with modern players and DAC's, but if you try them, they still make a difference.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 13:41
The TLC and DIP are jitter busters. Some will tell you they are not necessary with modern players and DAC's, but if you try them, they still make a difference.Ok.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 13:45
Define 'better'.Analogue,
Wider and deeper soundstage. Coherent and fluid sound. Realism to vocals and instruments and the music fills the room. Nylon string guitars display harmonic nuances.
Digital - CD
Thinner, grainy sound. Sharp leading edges and less fluidity. Smaller soundstage.
Hi-Res files,
Somewhere in between the Vinyl and CD.
I definitely prefer HiRes files over CD.
Of course cd's dont do this....https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180413/7bc2bf65fcd4e2f92e51e24e648c3f1d.jpg
Lol
Analogue,
Wider and deeper soundstage. Coherent and fluid sound. Realism to vocals and instruments and the music fills the room. Nylon string guitars display harmonic nuances.
Digital - CD
Thinner, grainy sound. Sharp leading edges and less fluidity. Smaller soundstage.
Hi-Res files,
Somewhere in between the Vinyl and CD.
I definitely prefer HiRes files over CD.
In a nutshell mate!:)
anthonyTD
13-04-2018, 13:59
Recently had a revox reel to reel in for repair, once completed, I did some recordings from a CD player direct onto tape, and I have to say; the tape version was way more satisfying to listen to than the original on CD! :scratch:
I think where digital is concerned, there are elements in the final playback that our ear/brain find difficult/Fatiguing to make sense of, hence we get tired and iritable without realy knowing why.
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 14:00
Wider and deeper soundstage. Coherent and fluid sound. Realism to vocals and instruments and the music fills the room. Nylon string guitars display harmonic nuances
But I have that from CD (and records :)).
walpurgis
13-04-2018, 14:09
Recently had a revox reel to reel in for repair, once completed, I did some recordings from a CD player direct onto tape, and I have to say; the tape version was way more satisfying to listen to than the original on CD! :scratch:
Something to do with the preamplifier section in the Revox?
Recently had a revox reel to reel in for repair, once completed, I did some recordings from a CD player direct onto tape, and I have to say; the tape version was way more satisfying to listen to than the original on CD! :scratch:
I think where digital is concerned, there are elements in the final playback that our ear/brain find difficult/Fatiguing to make sense of, hence we get tired and iritable without realy knowing why.
A few of us have heard Alan T R2R playing recorded CD material and found exactly the same?:scratch:
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 14:21
But I have that from CD (and records :)).Well I haven't. I'm not even sure if digital can replicate the organic sound of analogue. I'm happy to try though whereas before I was anti digital
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 14:25
Recently had a revox reel to reel in for repair, once completed, I did some recordings from a CD player direct onto tape, and I have to say; the tape version was way more satisfying to listen to than the original on CD! :scratch:
I think where digital is concerned, there are elements in the final playback that our ear/brain find difficult/Fatiguing to make sense of, hence we get tired and iritable without realy knowing why.How very interesting. I seriously think it's all about the missing bits in the waveform that the digital "guesses' at.
anthonyTD
13-04-2018, 14:33
But thats just it, it used to be well accepted that if you analyse a sign wave' which was originaly derived from a digital source" that one would be able to see a step formation withing the trace of the analogue signal, this has long since been found to be a myth, but I understand where your coming from as far as the digital side is concerned.
How very interesting. I seriously think it's all about the missing bits in the waveform that the digital "guesses' at.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 14:40
But thats just it, it used to be well accepted that if you analyse a sign wave' which was originaly derived from a digital source" that one would be able to see a step formation withing the trace of the analogue signal, this has long since been found to be a myth, but I understand where your coming from as far as the digital side is concerned.Don't get me wrong, the improvements I have made here, make digital sources quite enjoyable but when the Vinyl goes on, it's like another level entirely. I've approached digital with the mentality of just trying to enjoy what it does and that's give me access to a really large library of music. If I like something I hear, I'll buy it on vinyl.
anthonyTD
13-04-2018, 15:28
I have had many diffrent CD players in my system over the years, and the one that I always come back to as my main player is from 1989, at the time it was classed as the first Hi end CD player, IMHO Still very hard to beat today, it just seems to me that although the technical side of digital has vastly improved, it has been at the expense of musicality!
Don't get me wrong, the improvements I have made here, make digital sources quite enjoyable but when the Vinyl goes on, it's like another level entirely. I've approached digital with the mentality of just trying to enjoy what it does and that's give me access to a really large library of music. If I like something I hear, I'll buy it on vinyl.
I have had many diffrent CD players in my system over the years, and the one that I always come back to as my main player is from 1989, at the time it was classed as the first Hi end CD player, IMHO Still very hard to beat today, it just seems to me that although the technical side of digital has vastly improved, it has been at the expense of musicality!
is it a secret?
jandl100
13-04-2018, 15:53
How very interesting. I seriously think it's all about the missing bits in the waveform that the digital "guesses' at.
There is nothing missing.
Digitally recorded waveforms are mathematically identical to the original analog waveform.
No ifs or buts, I'm afraid, that is how the physics works.
Any differences with analog playback are down to analog playback distortions.
Sorry, but mathematically that is just the way it is. Digital sampling is an exact and precisely defined science.
Any "improvements" in analog are distortions.
Do all DACs sound the same?
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 15:56
There is nothing missing.
Digitally recorded waveforms are mathematically identical to the original analog waveform.
No ifs or buts, I'm afraid, that is how the physics works.
Any differences with analog playback are down to analog playback distortions.
Sorry, but mathematically that is just the way it is. Digital sampling is an exact and precisely defined science.
Any "improvements" in analog are distortions.Mathematicians don't make music. If there's nothing missing, why have higher bitrates? I'm not being antagonistic, I just don't know why there would be a need for more bits if there was nothing wrong with lower bitrates.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 16:01
Don't they? Brian May has knocked out a few tunes [emoji38]
(Ok, an astronomer, but there's a lot of maths in it.)Lol, there are mathematician/musicians of course but you don't find many in the recording studio, mixing artists material.
That's an interesting point which brings up a subject rarely mentioned in discussions: that distortion in digital systems increases with decreasing signal level, which is the exact opposite of analogue electronics. A sine wave at full output which uses all 16 bits of a 16 bit digital system might show no distortion or steps, but a sine wave 60dB or more lower would have nowhere near the same resolution.
Which possibly explains digital's poorer ambience and soundstage depth.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 16:07
So, I'm sitting here playing Tango in the Night - Fleetwood Mac in 96/??? (Christ knows what it is) and compared to the CD, it absolutely shits on it. Deeper, wider and way easier to listen to. This is nearer to the fluidity of vinyl as far as I'm concerned
Can someone explain why ?
anthonyTD
13-04-2018, 16:24
No Secret :D
Its a California Audio Tempest 2 [Special edition] It has a true all valve directly coupled output stage, and even uses valves for the current to voltage conversion from the Dac chips.
Its easily the most analogue sounding player I have heard, whether thats a good or bad point" depends on ones personal taste I guess.:)
is it a secret?
Firebottle
13-04-2018, 17:35
Its easily the most analogue sounding player I have heard, whether thats a good or bad point" depends on ones personal taste I guess.:)
Wow that sounds superb, would love to hear it ;)
Firebottle
13-04-2018, 17:35
Its easily the most analogue sounding player I have heard, whether thats a good or bad point" depends on ones personal taste I guess.:)
Wow that sounds superb, would love to hear it ;)
Firebottle
13-04-2018, 17:39
Indeed it may. I think there are far too many pieces of equipment which quote distortion figures at full output. I think the performance at low signal levels is probably more important the performance at high signal levels. After all, the signal spends most of its time nearer to zero than full output.
I think this is a very critical point and I'm glad you brought it to everyone's attention. It hadn't struck me but this is a very real restriction on digital performance.
magiccarpetride
13-04-2018, 18:32
Again....for temporal reasons. Bit perfect isn't sufficient.
Interesting. So the argument kind of goes like this: recorded sound ends up being stored as a signal that could be used to reproduce the original sound. That signal is very simple. But hold on, there is a temporal dimension to it, so it is actually very complex.
That is the most confused argument I've ever heard. It must be either simple, or not simple. It cannot be both simple and not simple at the same time.
montesquieu
13-04-2018, 18:44
Interesting. So the argument kind of goes like this: recorded sound ends up being stored as a signal that could be used to reproduce the original sound. That signal is very simple. But hold on, there is a temporal dimension to it, so it is actually very complex.
That is the most confused argument I've ever heard. It must be either simple, or not simple. It cannot be both simple and not simple at the same time.
Actually the digital element is the easy bit. The majority of CDPs and DACs sound shit because they use 10p opamps - 50p in posh ones - in the output stage. Sort the output stage, which I would say is 50% of the overall impact, and the chip is maybe 10% of the overall sound, most of the the remainder being down to power supply. The vast majority of crap digital is actually just crap implementation.
magiccarpetride
13-04-2018, 18:51
Actually the digital element is the easy bit. The majority of CDPs and DACs sound shit because they use 10p opamps - 50p in posh ones - in the output stage. Sort the output stage, which I would say is 50% of the overall impact, and the chip is maybe 10% of the overall sound, most of the the remainder being down to power supply. The vast majority of crap digital is actually just crap implementation.
I'm prepared to agree with this.
paulf-2007
13-04-2018, 18:59
Don't they? Brian May has knocked out a few tunes :lol:
(Ok, an astronomer, but there's a lot of maths in it.)
Brian May is an astronomer? Brian Cox is.
Brian May is an astronomer? Brian Cox is.
"His PhD investigated radial velocity using absorption spectroscopy and doppler spectroscopy of zodiacal light using a Fabry–Pérot interferometer based at the Teide Observatory in Tenerife. His research was initially supervised by Jim Ring,[2] Ken Reay[2] and in the latter stages by Michael Rowan-Robinson.[1] He graduated at the awards ceremony of Imperial College held in the Royal Albert Hall on 14 May 2008.[citation needed]"
Wikipedia: Brian May biog.
anthonyTD
13-04-2018, 19:54
If your ever in the area Alan. :)
Wow that sounds superb, would love to hear it ;)
So, I'm sitting here playing Tango in the Night - Fleetwood Mac in 96/??? (Christ knows what it is) and compared to the CD, it absolutely shits on it. Deeper, wider and way easier to listen to. This is nearer to the fluidity of vinyl as far as I'm concerned
Can someone explain why ?
Harmonic distortion, arm and cartridge resonances and feedback. It's not a secret or anything. Add to that you have arguably the best turntable ever made and I don't know what you are using for digital but I'm guessing it's not the best ever made.
Bigman80
13-04-2018, 20:32
Harmonic distortion, arm and cartridge resonances and feedback. It's not a secret or anything. Add to that you have arguably the best turntable ever made and I don't know what you are using for digital but I'm guessing it's not the best ever made.Lol, yes I agree about the TT [emoji6]
I'm using an M2TECH Young DAC. I was only using Digital sources to compare. The 96/ bitrate battered the 16bit version so I was asking why, if nothing is missing from the lower bitrate version. Digital is a mystery to me mate.
OK Martin I've got your point, that you have made on numerous posts before.
A digital COPY is a digital copy and is all we need for music storage given adequate bit depth.
However it could be like saying I have xyz vinyl on my shelf, it's no good until it is reproduced on the TT.
Or it's like saying I have a digital copy of SOS in my brain, or other storage media, which is of no use unless it is transmitted or communicated to somebody else.
So analogue and digital convergence must include the replay chain in this instance, otherwise it's very difficult to hear and appreciate it.
:)
Sorry man I've been out all day. Yes that is sort of what I was saying - consider that any digital system regardless of how cheap will have no issues reading what is on the disc or file 100%, what happens after that read is where it can or will fall over. With vinyl just reading the disc accurately requires some very serious and expensive engineering and even then it won't be 100% accurate.
In case anyone thinks I'm trying to argue that digital sounds better than vinyl I am emphatically not. I'm saying that the reason most of us agree that vinyl done well sounds the best is not because it is technically the better medium. It's subjectively better because of its technical flaws.
Having said that all of you who think digital is inherently poor, that it has glare, it is hard, it is harsh, it gives you fatigue regardless need to sort out your digital - or come round mine and have a listen. If you think digital technology has come on in leaps and bounds I've got top-end CD players here from 1987 and 1993 that will give you pause for thought.
As for hi-res sounding better - they remastered it! Can you hear sounds at 40KHz? No! - and that's all 'hi res' is. CD with sounds you can't hear. Or sometimes just with spurious noise you can't hear (in case anyone checks to see if they bought what they paid for). It's the biggest and most successful con in hi-fi history. Get with the program folks!
magiccarpetride
13-04-2018, 21:08
Harmonic distortion, arm and cartridge resonances and feedback. It's not a secret or anything. Add to that you have arguably the best turntable ever made and I don't know what you are using for digital but I'm guessing it's not the best ever made.
Objection! If "harmonic distortion, arm and cartridge resonances and feedback" make the sound "deeper, wider and way easier to listen to", then the worse the turntable is, the better it should sound. Which is not really the case (or maybe it is?)
Harmonic distortion, arm and cartridge resonances and feedback. It's not a secret or anything. Add to that you have arguably the best turntable ever made and I don't know what you are using for digital but I'm guessing it's not the best ever made.
It could also be a poor transfer to digital. Just now I was listening to a 1950s mono recording transferred to CD, and it sounded great. I have the same recording on vinyl, but, like myself, it's a bit old and knackered.
magiccarpetride
13-04-2018, 21:30
Sorry man I've been out all day. Yes that is sort of what I was saying - consider that any digital system regardless of how cheap will have no issues reading what is on the disc or file 100%, what happens after that read is where it can or will fall over. With vinyl just reading the disc accurately requires some very serious and expensive engineering and even then it won't be 100% accurate.
I'm not quite sue that's 100% correct. Knowing what I know about software (after spending 28 years developing the same), I won't be surprised if reading and buffering auxiliary storage comes with certain levels of fault tolerance, so instead of just falling over at the first sign of trouble, software makes its best educated guess, interpolates some values it figures could statistically be the closest to what the unreadable data represents, and then move along.
It would be naive to assume that in the digital world, either stored information is being read 100% correctly, or the system bails. I suspect a lot of cost-cutting digital readers are prone to 'fill in the blanks' while reading and encountering any hiccups. Ergo, fatiguing, brittle and tiring/unpleasant playback.
In case anyone thinks I'm trying to argue that digital sounds better than vinyl I am emphatically not. I'm saying that the reason most of us agree that vinyl done well sounds the best is not because it is technically the better medium. It's subjectively better because of its technical flaws.
Wow, that's quite a stretch. So technical flaws make something better? I vehemently disagree.
Having said that all of you who think digital is inherently poor, that it has glare, it is hard, it is harsh, it gives you fatigue regardless need to sort out your digital - or come round mine and have a listen. If you think digital technology has come on in leaps and bounds I've got top-end CD players here from 1987 and 1993 that will give you pause for thought.
I completely agree with you. And I'll go one further: yesterday I was doing a little bit of side-by-side comparison between my turntable and my digital playback (that exercise was a part of the ongoing conversation I'm having with an audiophile friend). So first I listened to Santana's "Jingo" (off their first album) on my near-mint original LP, then I switched over to the remastered FLAC, then back to the LP.
My conclusions? Are you ready for this? I found out -- believe it or not -- that digital playback sounded more 'analog' than the LP playback!
Whaaa? Digital sounded warm, smooth, silky, no rough edges, everything tame and proper and carefully ironed out.
LP, in contrast, sounded impolite, unruly, with lots of rough edges. The instruments were carved out in space much more clearly, the sound was incisive, not nearly as warm as the digital. Cymbals and electrical guitar leaped out of my Maggies. It was a real 'balls to the wall' fiesta, and the LP made Santana sound very unvarnished.
If that were a blindfold test, I'd put my bottom bitcoin on the FLAC playback being the vinyl playback.
Goes to show how little I really know...
As for hi-res sounding better - they remastered it! Can you hear sounds at 40KHz? No! - and that's all 'hi res' is. CD with sounds you can't hear. Or sometimes just with spurious noise you can't hear (in case anyone checks to see if they bought what they paid for). It's the biggest and most successful con in hi-fi history. Get with the program folks!
Hear, hear! You nailed it. I'm ashamed to admit, but if I take a hi rez FLAC (24 bit/96 kHz) and dither it down to Red Book format, and then play hi rez and Red Book side-by-side, to my mushy ears they always and invariably sound bloody IDENTICAL! So much for the supremacy of the hi rez...
I'm not quite sue that's 100% correct. Knowing what I know about software (after spending 28 years developing the same), I won't be surprised if reading and buffering auxiliary storage comes with certain levels of fault tolerance, so instead of just falling over at the first sign of trouble, software makes its best educated guess, interpolates some values it figures could statistically be the closest to what the unreadable data represents, and then move along.
It would be naive to assume that in the digital world, either stored information is being read 100% correctly, or the system bails. I suspect a lot of cost-cutting digital readers are prone to 'fill in the blanks' while reading and encountering any hiccups. Ergo, fatiguing, brittle and tiring/unpleasant playback.
..
Dude you really need to read up on how digital audio works. If there is a problem reading, first of all the information is on multiple sections of the disc, so there is redundancy. Second if that fails you have error correction, which either works perfectly or fails completely. If it fails completely you will get a skip, or a screech, or some other obviously audible flaw. Everyone has heard that happen. Usually the disc just needs a wipe on your sleeve and your are good to go. None of this is speculation it is fact, it is mathematics until you get to the analogue output stage. There is no unknown as to what is happening just as there are no unknowns in a computer program.
fatiguing, brittle and tiring/unpleasant playback. Will be nothing to do with any failure to read the disc. There are multiple things it could be. For example a system that has been selected to make recordings sound like live music (aka the 'Flat Earth' movement) with analogue sources that all exhibit some gentle compression (compact cassette, reel to reel, vinyl) will sound a bit rough when presented with a source without that compression. Digital designers cottoned on to this years ago and now you can buy 'analogue sounding' digital components. Not quite the same and not going to replace anyone's turntable but they are at least listenable when combined with such a set up.
magiccarpetride
13-04-2018, 22:55
Dude you really need to read up on how digital audio works. If there is a problem reading, first of all the information is on multiple sections of the disc, so there is redundancy. Second if that fails you have error correction, which either works perfectly or fails completely. If it fails completely you will get a skip, or a screech, or some other obviously audible flaw. Everyone has heard that happen. Usually the disc just needs a wipe on your sleeve and your are good to go. None of this is speculation it is fact, it is mathematics until you get to the analogue output stage. There is no unknown as to what is happening just as there are no unknowns in a computer program.
That flies in the face of what proponents of digital streaming are harping on. According to them, when you rip a CD, the CD reader is not under duress to keep playing in real time, so it can take its sweet time to read and reread (notice no-hyphenation) each and every byte. The result is much more accurate file, which then you can stream from your hard drive into your digital transport. They claim this approach results in much better digital sound reproduction.
Another audiophile myth?
That flies in the face of what proponents of digital streaming are harping on. According to them, when you rip a CD, the CD reader is not under duress to keep playing in real time, so it can take its sweet time to read and reread (notice no-hyphenation) each and every byte. The result is much more accurate file, which then you can stream from your hard drive into your digital transport. They claim this approach results in much better digital sound reproduction.
Another audiophile myth?
Yes. And no. It may be more accurate but it doesn't matter. At all.
magiccarpetride
13-04-2018, 23:05
Yes. And no. It may be more accurate but it doesn't matter. At all.
OK. So what matters (at all)?
OK. So what matters (at all)?
I already said what matters a few times. Basically none of the crap that you read about matters. You want good digital go and buy a high end Japanese CD player (or DAC, if you can find one, good luck with that, but they do exist) from about 1986 to 1999 and make sure the rest of your system is not set up to make recordings sound like 'live music' and you're golden.
And if you do find a Jap DAC from that era and the bloke does not want the price of a decent used car for it, then be careful with the transport because that matters too. But not for the usually cited reasons.
I can't believe you are a software engineer and you don't know how digital audio works. Wind up or what? Not that I care, my TV is broken so I'm at a loose end.
magiccarpetride
13-04-2018, 23:33
I already said what matters a few times. Basically none of the crap that you read about matters. You want good digital go and buy a high end Japanese CD player (or DAC, if you can find one, good luck with that, but they do exist) from about 1986 to 1999 and make sure the rest of your system is not set up to make recordings sound like 'live music' and you're golden.
And if you do find a Jap DAC from that era and the bloke does not want the price of a decent used car for it, then be careful with the transport because that matters too. But not for the usually cited reasons.
I can't believe you are a software engineer and you don't know how digital audio works. Wind up or what? Not that I care, my TV is broken so I'm at a loose end.
You were kind of starting to make some sense in the above post (if one were to squint real hard), until your last two sentences. That's when you totally disqualified yourself as someone who could talk legibly on the subject.
paulf-2007
14-04-2018, 07:20
"His PhD investigated radial velocity using absorption spectroscopy and doppler spectroscopy of zodiacal light using a Fabry–Pérot interferometer based at the Teide Observatory in Tenerife. His research was initially supervised by Jim Ring,[2] Ken Reay[2] and in the latter stages by Michael Rowan-Robinson.[1] He graduated at the awards ceremony of Imperial College held in the Royal Albert Hall on 14 May 2008.[citation needed]"
Wikipedia: Brian May biog.i think you've made your point:)
Just been reading a show report from AXPONA in Chicago where one of the exhibitors set up a reference quality system with some mega bucks equipment. A very expensive high end digital system was blown away by tape! Yes an analogue R2R wiped the floor with the digital set up and gave all who listened to it everything you could wish for in sound reproduction.
Maybe analogue and digital haven't converged yet!:) Apparently the R2R also bettered all the vinyl systems too.
I already said what matters a few times. Basically none of the crap that you read about matters. You want good digital go and buy a high end Japanese CD player (or DAC, if you can find one, good luck with that, but they do exist) from about 1986 to 1999 and make sure the rest of your system is not set up to make recordings sound like 'live music' and you're golden.
And if you do find a Jap DAC from that era and the bloke does not want the price of a decent used car for it, then be careful with the transport because that matters too. But not for the usually cited reasons.
I can't believe you are a software engineer and you don't know how digital audio works. Wind up or what? Not that I care, my TV is broken so I'm at a loose end.
I am afraid Martin I think your digital experience is stuck in the dark ages.
Digital playback from CD’s, (and I assume audio files too?), is not perfect. It is not 100% accurate, and there is no second copy on a CD to refer to for error correction .
Let me try to paint an analogy. You have a large block of wood, waist high and just as long, and it is cut into a bunch of peaks and valleys, like a Musical signal roughly. You measure it, it’s anchored to the ground so you can’t take it with you, so you make measurements of the peaks and valleys. You go back to your shop, you take 1x4’s and stack them against each other vertically. Trying to get as close to your measurements from the original. You can only be accurate every 3/4 inch, as that’s the thickness of the boards. So, you have built your copy, but the edges are all stepped up and down every 3/4 inch. What do you do? You take a jig saw and cut the leading edges off and make it smooth! Nice! Just like the original! But you take it to the original and place them against each other, and you find that all of your averaging has made a copy that is not accurate. The peaks and valleys are near the same place, but the edges are all different. It feels smooth to the touch! And if you couldn’t see them side by side, you’d swear they were identical. But, they are not. And of course the higher the resolution, if you went back with half inch boards it would be a little closer, and if you made it from eighth inch boards it would be even more accurate! But, on closer inspection, you still have tiny differences. There is no way to make an exact digital copy of an analog wave form. Out of wood, or out of electrons.
Don’t get me wrong, you can get VARY close! And these errors in shape do not sound like distortions, they sound like music! They are smooth on the edges, music flows! It doesn’t create noise. But, it is still ever so slightly different from the original.
Analog, I took a cardboard sheet and laid it up against the original wooden peaks and valleys and traced it, built the copy, and laid the cardboard on it, and traced it, and made an exact copy. I can take it back to the original and lay them up against each other and they will match! I’ve always thought of it as, analog is like looking in a mirror, while digital is like looking at a photograph. Maybe that’s an oversimplified view?
Russell
Bigman80
14-04-2018, 22:58
Digital playback from CD’s, (and I assume audio files too?), is not perfect. It is not 100% accurate, and there is no second copy on a CD to refer to for error correction .
Let me try to paint an analogy. You have a large block of wood, waist high and just as long, and it is cut into a bunch of peaks and valleys, like a Musical signal roughly. You measure it, it’s anchored to the ground so you can’t take it with you, so you make measurements of the peaks and valleys. You go back to your shop, you take 1x4’s and stack them against each other vertically. Trying to get as close to your measurements from the original. You can only be accurate every 3/4 inch, as that’s the thickness of the boards. So, you have built your copy, but the edges are all stepped up and down every 3/4 inch. What do you do? You take a jig saw and cut the leading edges off and make it smooth! Nice! Just like the original! But you take it to the original and place them against each other, and you find that all of your averaging has made a copy that is not accurate. The peaks and valleys are near the same place, but the edges are all different. It feels smooth to the touch! And if you couldn’t see them side by side, you’d swear they were identical. But, they are not. And of course the higher the resolution, if you went back with half inch boards it would be a little closer, and if you made it from eighth inch boards it would be even more accurate! But, on closer inspection, you still have tiny differences. There is no way to make an exact digital copy of an analog wave form. Out of wood, or out of electrons.
Don’t get me wrong, you can get VARY close! And these errors in shape do not sound like distortions, they sound like music! They are smooth on the edges, music flows! It doesn’t create noise. But, it is still ever so slightly different from the original.
Analog, I took a cardboard sheet and laid it up against the original wooden peaks and valleys and traced it, built the copy, and laid the cardboard on it, and traced it, and made an exact copy. I can take it back to the original and lay them up against each other and they will match! I’ve always thought of it as, analog is like looking in a mirror, while digital is like looking at a photograph. Maybe that’s an oversimplified view?
RussellRussell, what a fantastic explanation. That's why analogue is better. I love it.
magiccarpetride
15-04-2018, 02:02
Digital playback from CD’s, (and I assume audio files too?), is not perfect. It is not 100% accurate, and there is no second copy on a CD to refer to for error correction .
Let me try to paint an analogy. You have a large block of wood, waist high and just as long, and it is cut into a bunch of peaks and valleys, like a Musical signal roughly. You measure it, it’s anchored to the ground so you can’t take it with you, so you make measurements of the peaks and valleys. You go back to your shop, you take 1x4’s and stack them against each other vertically. Trying to get as close to your measurements from the original. You can only be accurate every 3/4 inch, as that’s the thickness of the boards. So, you have built your copy, but the edges are all stepped up and down every 3/4 inch. What do you do? You take a jig saw and cut the leading edges off and make it smooth! Nice! Just like the original! But you take it to the original and place them against each other, and you find that all of your averaging has made a copy that is not accurate. The peaks and valleys are near the same place, but the edges are all different. It feels smooth to the touch! And if you couldn’t see them side by side, you’d swear they were identical. But, they are not. And of course the higher the resolution, if you went back with half inch boards it would be a little closer, and if you made it from eighth inch boards it would be even more accurate! But, on closer inspection, you still have tiny differences. There is no way to make an exact digital copy of an analog wave form. Out of wood, or out of electrons.
Don’t get me wrong, you can get VARY close! And these errors in shape do not sound like distortions, they sound like music! They are smooth on the edges, music flows! It doesn’t create noise. But, it is still ever so slightly different from the original.
Analog, I took a cardboard sheet and laid it up against the original wooden peaks and valleys and traced it, built the copy, and laid the cardboard on it, and traced it, and made an exact copy. I can take it back to the original and lay them up against each other and they will match! I’ve always thought of it as, analog is like looking in a mirror, while digital is like looking at a photograph. Maybe that’s an oversimplified view?
Russell
You are describing the map, not the territory. Which is fine, of course, but as Korzybski famously said, "map is NOT the territory". I think all issues stem from the fact that we tend to forget this simple axiom.
We don't really know what kind of information is being captured by the microphone membrane that vibrates and converts kinetic energy into electric energy. Yes, people will now chime in and call me clueless insisting that we know exactly what was being captured, but that is a naive oversimplification. All we know is that we get some sort of an electrical signal on the other end. That signal varies with time, and this variation is used to represent the information that is supposed to retell the story -- what happened back in 23rd March 1967 when the Beatles were recording "Getting Better", for example.
Claiming that this electrical signal can be used with present technology to recreate the session is similar to claiming that, by measuring the kinetic energy produced by the virtuoso pianist, we can understand everything about that musician's talent.
Folks, such naive approach to understanding what's going on around us in this amazing reality is called, in technical terms, 'reductionism'.
Professing reductionism is not something that is hard to do, and is definitely not something to brag about. Any idiot can practice reductionism, and easily reduce any complex phenomenon to just a bunch of electrons and protons and neutrons buzzing around. So fcking what?
If you have the courage to drop this oversimplification (or, as Lennon sang, "living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see"), you have to accept the fact that the current state of technology is still in diapers, and that technology keeps growing up and is currently evolving at an impressive pace. So it would be absolutely moronic to lie back and complacently announce how we have solved all the issues surrounding capturing and reproducing sound.
If I were to make a prediction, I'd say that we can expect some interesting breakthroughs to come at us from the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. People are now working on such advanced tech called "smart dust" (IBM just unveiled fully functional computer the size of a grain of sand). Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Firebottle
15-04-2018, 07:29
Got a match? (..no not a bunch of 1001110010100100001010010100010)
You are describing the map, not the territory. Which is fine, of course, but as Korzybski famously said, "map is NOT the territory". I think all issues stem from the fact that we tend to forget this simple axiom.
We don't really know what kind of information is being captured by the microphone membrane that vibrates and converts kinetic energy into electric energy. Yes, people will now chime in and call me clueless insisting that we know exactly what was being captured, but that is a naive oversimplification. All we know is that we get some sort of an electrical signal on the other end. That signal varies with time, and this variation is used to represent the information that is supposed to retell the story -- what happened back in 23rd March 1967 when the Beatles were recording "Getting Better", for example.
Claiming that this electrical signal can be used with present technology to recreate the session is similar to claiming that, by measuring the kinetic energy produced by the virtuoso pianist, we can understand everything about that musician's talent.
Folks, such naive approach to understanding what's going on around us in this amazing reality is called, in technical terms, 'reductionism'.
Professing reductionism is not something that is hard to do, and is definitely not something to brag about. Any idiot can practice reductionism, and easily reduce any complex phenomenon to just a bunch of electrons and protons and neutrons buzzing around. So fcking what?
If you have the courage to drop this oversimplification (or, as Lennon sang, "living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see"), you have to accept the fact that the current state of technology is still in diapers, and that technology keeps growing up and is currently evolving at an impressive pace. So it would be absolutely moronic to lie back and complacently announce how we have solved all the issues surrounding capturing and reproducing sound.
If I were to make a prediction, I'd say that we can expect some interesting breakthroughs to come at us from the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. People are now working on such advanced tech called "smart dust" (IBM just unveiled fully functional computer the size of a grain of sand). Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
When I was being educated I studied physics and chemistry amongst the sciences and was fascinated by each subject. I was amazed at what mankind had learnt about the earth and the universe and everything in it and how it was applied to modern day living.
But one thing I remember at the end of my science education was the fact that all I had just learnt may actually not be true. It is how we have labelled and come to understand what we know but that may not be actually how it is. It is a difficult concept but my lecturer actually went to great length to explain it was just how we had interpreted the world around us and how we tried to make things fit our conception of all about us.
Many times conceptions have been torn up as the new science and knowledge has advanced.
Once the world was considered to be flat! Go figure.:)
walpurgis
15-04-2018, 08:20
When I was being educated I studied physics and chemistry amongst the sciences and was fascinated by each subject. I was amazed at what mankind had learnt about the earth and the universe and everything in it and how it was applied to modern day living.
So did I. You can add biology to that too.
Strangely, some knowledge helps one understand how little we really do know. My feeling is that we are still near the beginning of real learning, discovery and advancement. Maybe there's a slim hope humanity can move forward without destroying itself.
Einstein supposedly said, “The more I learn, the less I know.”.
Russell
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
anthonyTD
15-04-2018, 09:32
There are more questions than answers, "and the more I find out the less I know" Johnny Nash!:)
Einstein supposedly said, “The more I learn, the less I know.”.
Russell
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There are more questions than answers, "and the more I find out the less I know" Johnny Nash!:)
Thank you for the correction, I saw it on a Facebook Meme, so that’s why I said, “supposedly”. Still, the sentiment rings true.
Russell
If the electronics from the mic, O/P to the speaker I/P are sorted, and to me they pretty well are near that, then the next problems are, apart form the obvious failings of speakers, the logistics of sound capture, and also those of replay which are substantial approximations.
Yes our models are only approximations that seem consistent with the results we get, and those models are constantly being updated.
anthonyTD
15-04-2018, 11:00
So True,
By the way' I was just recalling the song, where the quote originated' I havent a clue! :D
Thank you for the correction, I saw it on a Facebook Meme, so that’s why I said, “supposedly”. Still, the sentiment rings true.
Russell
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.