Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Yes - I'm sure he's made all the Luddites very happy! ;-) posted by learsfool on March 11, 2017 at 21:51:01
"Hi guys - I think you are misinterpreting (perhaps deliberately?) what Valin is saying here."
Nope. he has been quoted and quoted in context. That is the opposite of misrepresentation.
"He does not say that digital is not transparent. Quite the opposite, in fact. The main complaint, which I share, is that to achieve this "transparency" and "clarity", too much has been processed out with digital."
Actually he does say that it is not transparent. You are saying it too. If *anything audible* has been "processed out." It_aint_trnasparent. Transparent means zero audible change in the signal.
"it processes out much of the ambient noise which is an integral part of live performance."
Anything that does that is not "transparent."
Clarity and transaprency are not the same thing.
"Also, those of us who are wind players or singers for a living, and create our sounds with our breath, find that digital processing invariably removes many of the subtleties we aim for in our sounds."
That would also fall into the catagory of NOT transparent.
No point in going any further about transparency. It's not "clarity." It's the transcription of *ALL* audible parts of the original signal without any audible changes whatsoever.
Now to the point. Digital absolutely can be absolutely transparent.
And let me add that I do prefer vinyl playback (high end vinyl playback specifically) when all else is equal over digital transparency.
The proof of the pudding is that experiments were done (quite early in the digital age actually) which showed that when CD-quality digital recordings were made of LP tracks, listeners could not tell the difference between the actual LP playback and the digital copy.
OTOH, if you make an analogue copy of a digital source, it's often quite possible to tell which recording is the copy.
I think that if learsfool is hearing all these subtleties via vinyl that he's missing on digital playback, he must have something wrong with his digital set-up.
"I think that if learsfool is hearing all these subtleties via vinyl that he's missing on digital playback, he must have something wrong with his digital set-up."
If this is true over a broad range of source material then i would agree that either there is something wrong with his digital playback or we have a case of strong bias effects. But if it is not true over a broad range of source material then it simply could be a number of other real factors. We have to remember that what we have in the world of audio is a huge and diverse well of source material. LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, MP3s etc etc of a wide range of recordings. All recordings have their own individual sonic issues and virtues. All masterings of any analog tape sourced recording has a mine field of variations many of which are untrracable. Even digital recordings are often subject to major variations in mastering. And then we have a slew of digital playback that has not been implimented by design or by accident to be audible transparent. Then we have even mopre issues to contend with on the vinyl playback side of things. You have all kinds of distortions that are inherent. Some of them degrade SQ and some of them are euphonic in nature. And you have even greater variants within the different vinyl playback gear. Again some to the detriment of the SQ and some to the enhancement. Whenever I see anyone claiming that digital is always better or that vinyl is always better I suspect this is a malinformed opinion frought with limited experiences and?or major listener bias issues. Because of all the real world variables if one is trying to cut through the audiophile crap and get to the best sound one has to examine each recording and each piece of gear on an individual basis. And one has to understand the difference between objective accuracy, subjective realism and personal preference. I only concern myself with personal preferences.
I think you've nailed it there, Scott, and in the rest of your post, too. As for your response to learsfool's thoughtful post, where he cites one of my (no doubt learned and intelligent) posts, I'm not sure which one, I think there's no need to get into semantic debates as to exactly what "transparency" or "clarity" mean, though I understand the point you are making there as well and I don't disagree.
The bottom line is, my fellow wind player learsfool is describing a specific effect of digital recording (as distinct from digital playback, I think) that I hear as well, and that is particularly noticeable with wind instruments and the human voice, as he says. Professional engineers know all about it, and are skilled at compensating for it, especially with today's technology.
Anyway, it only proves your point, that each technology has its own issues and virtues.
Hi guys - I actually agree with almost all of what Scott is saying here as well, especially about the semantics part, and how this hampers conversations about audio stuff, including this one. Most of my post was actually ignored in the semantics discussion that followed. Putting those terms in quotation marks was my attempt to show that I did not necessarily agree with their use in the context (there are many audiophiles who seem to mean by "transparency" or "clarity" simply a lack of surface noise, and I agree with Scott that these are two very different terms, however I would say that no two audiophiles would define them in exactly the same way, either). This unfortunately was not clear - there is a reason I am a musician and not a writer, lol!
I will say, though, that rbolaw restates my main point very well, and correctly guesses that I meant the technology rather than the playback. I still stand by my comment that even the latest greatest digital technology still is incapable of what I said it was (as he says, professionals attempt to compensate for this in a great variety of ways), and for me personally, this is why I prefer analog. Others will not care about this issue whatsoever, and I am not saying they should. If all someone listens to is mostly electronic produced music made in a recording studio, then I would agree that digital is going to be the better technology for that. That type of "recording," however, does not remotely have anything to do with what audiophiles call "the absolute sound," yet another ambiguous term.
IMO the problem isn't digital. It's the very nature of audio recording and playback. Many analog/vinyl colorations, some inherent in those media and some unique to the specifc gear actually give us some compensation?fix for those inherent weaknesses in audio recording and playback. This is a wonderful seredipitous thing in the case of the media and a wonderful designed thing in much high end vinyl playback gear. I think this muddies the waters however when it comes to cause and effect. IMO, IME this leads to the idea that digital is doing something wrong when analog is actually doing something unexpectedly right.
Don't get me started on "the absolute sound." I will certainly piss off about half the folks on this forum with my opinions on that subject.
cant get aroound them in audio. Meaningful discussion falls on it's face in audio if we don't agree on the specific meanings of audio terms. I don't think it is a trivial thing to point out that clarity and transparency are not synonymous in audio. The problem often lies in the fact that there is a great deal of overlap with many terms and concepts in audio but that is often mistaken for interchangability. Just consider the two often used terms "realism" and "accuracy." Plenty of overlap but certainly two terms with very different meanings in audio. They are not interchangable. And yet so often the assumption that these terms are interchangable derails discussions on the merits of accuracy in audio.
"The bottom line is, my fellow wind player learsfool is describing a specific effect of digital recording (as distinct from digital playback, I think) that I hear as well, and that is particularly noticeable with wind instruments and the human voice, as he says. Professional engineers know all about it, and are skilled at compensating for it, especially with today's technology."
If one were to say this was a problem that plagued many early digital recordings and many early CDs I would completely agree. But if one is saying this is an issue that is still current and universal in all digital recordings I would definitley disagree. As has often been pointed out, one can make a digtal copy (which is a recording) of any LP and capture every bit of the audible signal.
Today's audio engineers and their equipment, both digital and analog, is so sophisticated that I, an ordinary listener, am very far from any position to pass judgment on the current state of the art.
Of course, perfectly reproducing a recording is not the same as perfectly capturing a live music performance. The former task is probably definable, at least. I'm not sure the latter is.
And the industry has been making the claim of perfect music reproduction for a long, long time.
This basic fact is so important in understanding audio at it's most fundamental levels. Yes!!!! The original live music performance is a profoundly complex 4 dimensional waveform. It is impossible to capture and encode that waveform in it's entirety using microphones placed at points in that space and then reduce those 2 dimensional electrical signals into two or even five discrete 2 dimensional signals that will convert into acoustic waveforms at two or five speaker sources in an entirely unique seperate sound space (the listening room) and bare any real similarity to the original waveform. Not only is it not possible it isn't even what the designers of stereo and multichannel were trying to do. They are trying to use those microphone feeds to creat an aural illusion in the playback. Like watching 3D movies.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: