|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.35.157.51
"DIGITAL IS TO ANALOG AS A BUTTERFLY PRESSED UNDER GLASS IS TO A BUTTERFLY IN AN OPEN FIELD"This isn't my analogy but Valin's and I'm pretty sure it's not him at his most elegant. His article in the new TAS entitled THE EMPEROR'S NEW SERVER is essentially his perspective on the digital vs. analog debate, after "taking the computer audio plunge ....the last 24 months...auditioning hi-res files over a variety of pretty good DACS." To be fair, he does list all the real or perceived advantages of digital audio (convenience, pitch stability, consistency, lack of surface noise, price, no warpage, availability of contemporary music) but still concludes "I positively dare you to listen to any well recorded piece of music turned into a digital file and played back from a computer via USB DAC and then listen to the exact same recording played back via a really good turntable, tonearm, cartridge and phonostage and tell me, with a straight face, that the digital recording sounds more like the real thing than the analog one."
It's a fair and well written piece but honestly, after naming all the advantages of digital playback, he seems to have run out of steam. His main argument in favor of analog is an old one: " What is wrong with digital audio, be it computerized or not, has been wrong from the go. No matter what the bit rate, no matter what the digital delivery system, you simply cannot "sample" the continuous-time sound of instruments or vocalists, turn it into discrete -time numbers, and then turn those back into instruments or vocalists without losing some of the very continuousness of presentation--the dense, constantly renewing, uninterrupted flow of articulation, dynamics and timbres--that is the very breath of musical life."
He repeats his dare about listening to a really good analog setup vs. a digital one but concludes with "All in all, it's probably best to look at this editorial diatribe as a minority report from an Old Fogey."
Also posted in Music Forum because I thought it equally relevant.
Edits: 03/10/17 03/10/17Follow Ups:
In the real world, when we hear music played live, there is always a a level of ambient sound -- people breathing, moving in seats, shuffling feet, ventilation, etc, etc. We never hear live music in a "sterile" place devoid of all extraneous undercurrents of sound in the setting. It is very subtle in a quiet auditorium, but it is there.
Moreover, we never sit where microphones are located in recording studios or even in venues used for "live" recordings. There is a drop off in sound decibels, but also in sound intensity, the further you are from the source. Simply adjusting the volume doesn't really fix the unnatural audio quality, because in any venue, increasing the distance also increases the amount of subtle low level noise introduced (above).
Digital audio creates unnaturally black silences that are never present in real world settings. The SNR for digital is unnatural.
And that, IMO, why a pristine vinyl pressing, even on a halfway decent system, sounds more natural, more "real" than digital.
My opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it, and YMMV.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
If they hadn't made that stupid marketing claim all those years ago, "Perfect Sound Forever", would we even be having this conversation? Digital would just be another way of enjoying music, managing production and so on - just like tape used to be.
Yes, one had to get over the deliberate manipulation of the sound (steak > > steak tartare), but had there been no claims to perfection, who would still be fussing?
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Here I'm addressing the broader vinyl-vs-digital question and not this particular claim.Meaning no disrespect to anyone, it's my understanding that there are many practical differences between vinyl and CD--different mastering with different limitations, the effects of the cutting system, etc.
In a 12-year-old forum post, Steve Hoffman talks about vinyl-versus-digital differences (Edit: He's referring specifically to RCA LSC-1817, mentioned by vinyl1 in a previous post): "It's distortion, but the good kind, tubes and out of phase top end starting around 8k. You'd thank that this would stink but it gives all of these old Living Stereo LP's that special breath of life that is not on the actual master tapes or work parts!
"Can that special sound be duplicated today? Sure. Kevin and I know how (the process would shock you) but it can be done..."
He doesn't address this, and I'm no expert, but it seems likely that it would be able to duplicate this effect in a high-resolution digital master--and thereby make a digital version that sounds as good as the record. Alternatively, a 24/96 or better needle drop can sound, to my ears, nearly indistinguishable from the vinyl original. That's one simple way of capturing those special vinyl-only characteristics (good and bad).
There's simply no reason to resort to esoteric philosophical arguments to explain why a vinyl recording sounds better to some people than digital. There are plenty of adequate practical explanations.
Cheers,
Jim
Edits: 03/12/17
nt
there's a guy over at PC who says he only listens to hi-rez.
Why severely limit your musical choices?
I know plenty of folks who just do not allow experience to over rule theory.
The World is full of historical examples of solid facts being faulted so the theory entrenched in the mind can stay intact.
Plenty of folks who otherwise would be sane rational individuals, behave in irrational ways to defend such notions over facts.
....so he is in another world compared to most of us.
I was once present when we did this type of comparison on a $300K plus system. We played RCA LSC-1817 on CD, SACD, and the original 1960 LP. Yes, the vinyl did sound very different, and it was the winner for most of those present. Bigger, faster, livelier were the terms we used.
I agree with Ellison on this. As someone from that era, we consumed music in the manner of the times as he described. Cassette tapes always had high frequency hiss. Dolby B helped but I always felt it dulled the sound too much so just put up with the hiss. If you wanted to take music with you, its what you did then. I have a lot of music that is just not available on vinyl and when it is, they want over $20 for it and often $50 these days. I am not a 1% audiophile so have to pick and choose my new records with care. I am a pretty strong used record shopper.
My digital rig is a Sony Blue Ray player of undetermined age. Sony has never made any piece of equipment with a harsh sound, so I think it sounds good (enough), but not state of the art obviously. The presentation is usually a little flat compared to my LPs. But, there are some very well recorded discs by Rick Rubin, Patricia's Barber's engineer and others where the music escapes more.
In sum, like John E., I don't see it as an either-or proposition.
Tom Collins
It's a shame that most analog and digital discussions always have to be a debate about which sounds better. As an audio hobbyist, I need to have both formats in my system. In fact, when I was growing up, all the audio hobbyists I knew had multiple formats in their systems. Vinyl was usually considered the standard by which other formats were judged, but all the audio hobbyists I knew wanted to have analog tape in their systems as well as vinyl. I don't remember there being a constant war among the formats. I guess it was really more about the music back in the good old days.
In addition to a high-end turntable or two, I always had a high-end reel-to-reel tape recorder in my system. I also wanted a good cassette recorder to make tapes for my car. Some people got into eight-track tape for their cars, but I never went there. I guess by the time I began upgrading my car stereos to play tape, the cassette had taken center stage as an audio format.
For some odd reason one of the things I always liked to do was copy vinyl to analog tape. When digital audio tape (DAT) came along, it just seemed natural to add a DAT recorder to my system. When I heard my first DAT recording of vinyl I was swept off my feet. There was no question in my mind that DAT was the most accurate format to come along for transparently copying vinyl. Therefore, I gradually moved away from analog tape in favor of DAT. I had no doubt that vinyl sounded better than commercial Compact Discs, but for making transparent copies of vinyl, DAT was the winner hands down over analog tape.
Nowadays, there's no question in my mind that hi-res digital and DSD are the digital formats I require in my audio system. I still have at least one exceptionally high-end turntable, but for copying vinyl, hi-res digital is the only format I will ever need. As far as I can tell, DSD 5.6M makes the most accurate copies of vinyl I've ever heard. With respect to DACs, the TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder has the best sounding DAC I've ever heard. Furthermore, at $1000, I don't think it's all that expensive either. Of course, I also own a $15,000 turntable with a $4200 phono stage but my thousand dollar digital recorder makes perfectly transparent copies of vinyl.
Best regards,
John Elison
....DSD5.6 rips of 30-IPS analogue studio master tapes. These kill the LP, and every other format.
Unfortunately, record labels can't offer such high resolution files, because that would giving away the keys to the kingdom.
Sorry, 30 ips is not for me, unless it's material with no bottom end, or unless you have an ATR102 with special heads. 30 ips *is* best for chamber groups, singer-plus-guitar, etc., but for anything with material down deep, 15 ips half-track is, for me, the king of the hill. Check out Jack Endino's graphs. They're old, but I think probably accurate.
The best tape machine I've spent with with was an A80 Mk-3 1/2" half-track. I'm afraid I couldn't hear much of a difference between 15 and 30, in part because the material (jazz groups) didn't have much down deep. And as the dynamic range of the material wasn't challenging, hiss was a non-issue. That machine, set up for the wonderful ATR Master Tape, is a delight.
Second to that, LP wins out for me, though the Plangent System 24/96 files, even on my modest Metric Halo ULN-2 dac, are pretty much neck-and-neck. If I had a killer LP setup, that might be different. (HDTracks has some early Springsteen albums, which are very good, and the Paray/Detroit Mercury Saint-Saëns 3rd, which is something of a revelation.)
One thing is for certain: we have more good choices now than ever before.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
as to the history you discuss. I'll take your word on the $15,000 turntable.
On my much more modest "budget audiophile" equipment, I once made a careful A/B comparison between NM vinyl and SACD using the same early 1960s analog recording that was digitally remastered for SACD. Yes, the LP produced slightly more background noise, and the SACD showed some very slight evidence of digital artifacts. But they were very close, and completely a subjective choice as to which one might prefer.
No point in debating it endlessly. Even the silent, "black" background, reasonably viewed as a major advantage of good digital audio, might be seen by some as unnatural and a drawback, since live music comes with all sorts of background noise. Etc., etc., etc.
stuff is Digital, and while there are a lot of good DACs, only a few are great.
Don't know if he heard one of those.
Anyway, there's no reason not to have both LP and Digital.
I have been loving my Sony Z1 and Mac D150.
I have a good TT and good Phono Pre in Mac C2500.
None of my recent Music Purchases are even available on LP.
To put his argument against digital in perspective, he should comment on whether he avoids new release pressings and remastered pressings of the originals. Using his argument, he shouldn't like the sound of the newly remastered and repressed vinyl as much as his originals....given that the new ones would be from a digital source and the remastered are likely to have come from a digital transcription from the original master tapes (for example the Beatles Remasters).
However, as far as commenting further...it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Thanks for these solid points. This joker in TAS reminds me of Donald Trump and has totally shot his credibility.
Depends on your reference ....
Edits: 03/12/17 03/12/17
But maybe I haven't spent enough on my digital rig? Still, I remember one wag who said, "The best way to enjoy digital is to never listen to vinyl."
John K.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: