AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Bryston Limited => Topic started by: CanadianMaestro on 18 May 2017, 12:26 pm
-
Article here that may stimulate further discussion:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-emperors-new-server/
-
If only the author could have any credibility, this might be worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, regardless of the vailidity (or not) of what he discusses here, his past writings and behavior strongly suggest he has no clue...
-
Cool, yet another dinosaur lamentation in writing
-
Cool, yet another dinosaur lamentation in writing
+1 :deadhorse:
-
If the goal is to reproduce a live musical performance in your home then analog will never do it and digital has a long, long way to go. Sit 10 feet away from a violinist playing a solo in your living room and you'll know what I'm talking about.
-
If the goal is to reproduce a live musical performance in your home then analog will never do it and digital has a long, long way to go. Sit 10 feet away from a violinist playing a solo in your living room and you'll know what I'm talking about.
My son plays a snare drum in the living room, I have yet to find the playback chain that can duplicate that sound perfectly.
-
My son plays a snare drum in the living room, I have yet to find the playback chain that can duplicate that sound perfectly.
Exactly. I at least give digital the nod of possibly getting there.
-
If the goal is to reproduce a live musical performance in your home, then analog will never do it and digital has a long, long way to go. Sit 10 feet away from a violinist playing a solo in your living room and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Yes I agree. That's why live performances are still going strong.
But given a choice to enjoy music in my own home (minus the bkgrd noise, coughing, etc at live venues), digital done well, is my choice, over vinyl. Better dynamic range, and the SQ is exactly the same on the 1000th playback as on the 1st. :thumb:
-
Cool, yet another dinosaur lamentation in writing
What a perfect synopsis! :thumb:
Best,
Anand.
-
The Editorial author sums it up well near the end of the article:
"All in all, it’s probably best to look at this editorial diatribe as a minority report from an Old Fogey." :lol:
-
The Editorial author sums it up well near the end of the article:
"All in all, it’s probably best to look at this editorial diatribe as a minority report from an Old Fogey." :lol:
He probably appreciates his own gullibility.
-
I guess I'm not willing to just pile on. I still like to read my newspaper and write an occasional letter. Is email and electronic news technically better? Yes, they are.......
-
I guess I'm not willing to just pile on. I still like to read my newspaper and write an occasional letter. Is email and electronic news technically better? Yes, they are.......
Who doesn't? I prefer real books to tablet eBooks. Up to a certain point (weight limits!).
I do prefer email when sending urgent messages that require quick action.
But with music, I think time and accuracy will catch up to convenience in due time, if not already.
-
Sly said it best ... "Different strokes for different folks."
I really don't begrudge anyone preferring reel-to-reel or vinyl or CD's, etc. I have owned all those at one time or another plus inferior stuff like 8 track & cassettes. Very happy with my computer/digital audio set-up: Server/ NAA/ DAC/ HQ Player upsampling software. No going back for this dino ...
-
Yes I agree. That's why live performances are still going strong.
But given a choice to enjoy music in my own home (minus the bkgrd noise, coughing, etc at live venues), digital done well, is my choice, over vinyl. Better dynamic range, and the SQ is exactly the same on the 1000th playback as on the 1st. :thumb:
Let's talk about dynamic range. I agree, that in theory digital has greater dynamic range available than vinyl. But, honestly, how often is that greater range used? I can recall a reviewer complaining about there being too much DR on a Steeleye Span record back in the late '70s. Same with early Mercurys. So if a record can "potentially" have excessive DR, what good is an additional 20 dB? The majority of commercial recordings (including classical) are mastered to a common denominator, and that means a fair bit of compression. So how many recordings do you have that take advantage of the wider dynamic range?
-
But with music, I think time and accuracy will catch up to convenience in due time, if not already.
Yep, understood and agree.
-
Let's talk about dynamic range. I agree, that in theory digital has greater dynamic range available than vinyl. But, honestly, how often is that greater range used? I can recall a reviewer complaining about there being too much DR on a Steeleye Span record back in the late '70s. Same with early Mercurys. So if a record can "potentially" have excessive DR, what good is an additional 20 dB? The majority of commercial recordings (including classical) are mastered to a common denominator, and that means a fair bit of compression. So how many recordings do you have that take advantage of the wider dynamic range?
I found live concert recordings on www.concertvault.com and www.qello.com to have great dynamic range. Many of the concerts at concert vault were recorded in the days before digital mixed right in the soundboard of the live performance. The streams are lossy but sound much better than a lossless compressed recording from ProTools.
-
Let's talk about dynamic range. I agree, that in theory digital has greater dynamic range available than vinyl. But, honestly, how often is that greater range used? I can recall a reviewer complaining about there being too much DR on a Steeleye Span record back in the late '70s. Same with early Mercurys. So if a record can "potentially" have excessive DR, what good is an additional 20 dB? The majority of commercial recordings (including classical) are mastered to a common denominator, and that means a fair bit of compression. So how many recordings do you have that take advantage of the wider dynamic range?
Not sure how many. I will say this. A lot of the classical LPs I listen to sound inferior to my digital versions from CD or from "hi-res" -- I can hear instruments that are very low in volume, whereas these soft sounds are obscured in the vinyl version. Same with vocalists. For me, that's dynamic range. But I agree with your point. Not many recordings/equipment take full advantage of the theoretical DR available, and also, human hearing may be limited within the theoretical max DR.
Only so much that one can accomplish before distortion etc kick in.
-
I would say the two formats are about equal in VALUE to me as a listener.
CD is easier to use, and I regularly listen to CD playback.
I own 2,500 CDs and 4,000 LPs
I do play LPs when in the mood.
They have DIFFERENT strengths and weaknesses.
I would say my LP playback is superior, but then my LP front end is more expensive than my digital front end..
And I think If I spent a bundle* on a new DAC that could change
(*it would need to be up near $5K used IMO to get me anywhere better)
The argument about which is better is too personal, like most audio it is the impression in an individual listening.
-
Despite being in and out of vinyl twice now, I begrudgingly concede that vinyl is superior in sound quality. I recently went over to a friend's house, and we compared a Lampizator L7 to his analog rig, and it wasn't even close. As great as the L7 sounded in his system, the analog was just that much better. I always get to a point where I miss the sound of analog so much that I mistakenly get back into the game.
With only having a limited amount of time to listen to music, and a small house with no storage space, I inevitably end up getting back out of it. I do enjoy the convenience of digital, and it can sound great.
-
Despite being in and out of vinyl twice now, I begrudgingly concede that vinyl is superior in sound quality. I recently went over to a friend's house, and we compared a Lampizator L7 to his analog rig, and it wasn't even close. As great as the L7 sounded in his system, the analog was just that much better. I always get to a point where I miss the sound of analog so much that I mistakenly get back into the game.
With only having a limited amount of time to listen to music, and a small house with no storage space, I inevitably end up getting back out of it. I do enjoy the convenience of digital, and it can sound great.
Hi
This is interesting - what do you think Analog does better than Digital and vice versa?
james
-
Hi
This is interesting - what do you think Analog does better than Digital and vice versa?
james
I do not think one is better than the other. What I think is some folks have listening PREFERENCES and things within the music which one format can show 'better' than the other.
(In the same way some folks just love tubes, and other have no use for 'tubes' in their system.)
What each of us listen To and FOR within music varies.
I can say I must have perfect treble. I pay a LOT of money for it.
Bass? I could care less.. I have no need for 'perfect' bass. In fact I hate chest thumping bass. So for me average adequate bass is like no problem at all.
I also have no concern about 'soundstage. for my own reasons. nor room speaker interactions. I am just not worried about a perfect response across the audio band.
Some folks totally different notions of what is important.
As for analog vs digital: For me it is pretty much what is easier. CD is WAY WAY easier to use than LP. both for handling and LENGTH of time between messing with.
LP is every 20 to 30 minutes. pulling out the LP, checking how clean. vacuuming. wiping the stylus, setting the arm. flipping the LP.. over and over. To stop have to turn off TT, put on cover..
CD, get five CDS. wipe them off as I insert. Play for five to six hours.. turn off. one button done.
also a comment on another prior post:
When I read someone mentioning the detail of CD as better? LOL Sorry, I can find that amazing detail in LPs too. So IMO that is not a difference.
Though on the cheap end of the equipment range, CD may appear to have more detail than LP.
My LP playback is way more expensive than my CD.
LP Kuzma Stabi/Sogi S with speed box, Dynavector 17D3, and a Audio Research Sp-15 I use just for it's wonderful tubed phono section. So all this is retail $11,000... In reality I got the ARC SP-15 Initially for $1,500, but after several trades, free.), the Kuzma used locally for $2,400, and the cart for $900. LOL
My digital is retail a third of that. And cost me like $1,000 for most of it, then $1,700 for a demo SCD777ES
-
I have always searched for the right words to describe the seductive appeal of the sound of good vinyl playback. But I can't. Somebody help me. Vinyl does sound good. Forget the Rice Krispies factoid. We learn to listen past that.
In the end, though, I always find myself going back to digital playback on my system (which is not perfect in any way). I crave the detail and accuracy of well-recorded CDs and music files ("hi-res") -- bass extension, treble texture, etc. Digital has all of that, and then some. I couldn't enjoy musik fully without both media types, vinyl + digital. Two "worlds", I think, both complementary -- bit like Ying and Yang?
If the goal of hi-perf audio is to bring us as close to a live perf as possible, then all of those characteristics mentioned before (soundstage, freq range, etc) do matter. I don't think that's a matter of personal taste per se. I think they are prerequisites if one's goal in building a system is the stated goal of hi-perf audio boldfaced above.
-
Hi
This is interesting - what do you think Analog does better than Digital and vice versa?
james
The common misconception I generally hear, is that vinyl is inherently warmer, but in my experience that's inaccurate. I've heard analog set ups that are horribly bright, and tonally cold.
When done correctly though, vinyl has this amazing "see through" quality to my ears. Like the proverbial window has been removed, and I can hear into the recording.
Digital gets close, but regardless of whatever jitter reducing mechanism, cabling, conditioning, etc, I use, it always has a subtle layer of "haze." A sound that, while a matter of some small degree, proves to be a huge detriment to the sum of the whole.
Digital is more accessible, and obviously has better technical potential, but for some reason, hasn't been able to reproduce music with the same quality for me.
-
+1 :deadhorse:
And the beat goes on, ever since the mid 80's. :duh:
-
This could be quite interesting if we discuss the pros and cons of the technologies technically as James suggested.
-
Not sure how many. I will say this. A lot of the classical LPs I listen to sound inferior to my digital versions from CD or from "hi-res" -- I can hear instruments that are very low in volume, whereas these soft sounds are obscured in the vinyl version. Same with vocalists. For me, that's dynamic range. But I agree with your point. Not many recordings/equipment take full advantage of the theoretical DR available, and also, human hearing may be limited within the theoretical max DR.
Only so much that one can accomplish before distortion etc kick in.
Well technically that's more inner detail than dynamic range. Without knowing what recordings you are comparing, I can't be certain, but there are a number of ways to increase inner detail. Closer miking is one. Another way to increase inner detail is to compress the signal so that the quieter sections are boosted by a couple of dB. If the compression is done right, it's hardly noticeable. Yes, even classical digital recordings can have compression. This is what I'm getting at: I have a number of symphonic CDs that are compressed. Most people couldn't handle the true dynamic range of an orchestra in their living room. The sound is miniaturized, not only in size, but also in scale.
Back in the '80s I compared Telarc vinyl and CD releases of the same recording - Copeland's Fanfare if memory serves. Guess what, the dynamic envelope was essentially the same. Yes, the CD was quieter, but signal wise, they were the same.
-
Well technically that's more inner detail than dynamic range. Without knowing what recordings you are comparing, I can't be certain, but there are a number of ways to increase inner detail. Closer miking is one. Another way to increase inner detail is to compress the signal so that the quieter sections are boosted by a couple of dB. If the compression is done right, it's hardly noticeable. Yes, even classical digital recordings can have compression. This is what I'm getting at: I have a number of symphonic CDs that are compressed. Most people couldn't handle the true dynamic range of an orchestra in their living room. The sound is miniaturized, not only in size, but also in scale.
Back in the '80s I compared Telarc vinyl and CD releases of the same recording - Copeland's Fanfare if memory serves. Guess what, the dynamic envelope was essentially the same. Yes, the CD was quieter, but signal wise, they were the same.
Telarc Lps were issued in horrible pressings back then, almost unlistenable, so how could you tell?
-
Well technically that's more inner detail than dynamic range. Without knowing what recordings you are comparing, I can't be certain, but there are a number of ways to increase inner detail. Closer miking is one. Another way to increase inner detail is to compress the signal so that the quieter sections are boosted by a couple of dB. If the compression is done right, it's hardly noticeable. Yes, even classical digital recordings can have compression. This is what I'm getting at: I have a number of symphonic CDs that are compressed. Most people couldn't handle the true dynamic range of an orchestra in their living room. The sound is miniaturized, not only in size, but also in scale.
Back in the '80s I compared Telarc vinyl and CD releases of the same recording - Copeland's Fanfare if memory serves. Guess what, the dynamic envelope was essentially the same. Yes, the CD was quieter, but signal wise, they were the same.
Symphonies are the hardest to get right on disc (or any other medium). It's a very high bar to set, for assessing high fidelity.
-
I couldn't enjoy musik fully without both media types, vinyl + digital. Two "worlds", I think, both complementary -- bit like Ying and Yang?
Unfortunately, we try to make the world too black and white: there must always has to be a winner and a loser. It's a competition. I get enough of that at work. Music is where I try to forget all that.
-
This digital challenge dates back to 1984 with the Linn CEO Ivor Tiefenbrun
that just knew he could tell 100% of the time between digital and analogue.
Well, he was 50% right.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
When I was a dealer in the 80's and 90's, all of my customers failed 100% of the time, and I was only using a $400 Scott Nixon modded Magnavox CD player. The analogue I used cost over $3K.
-
I do not think one is better than the other. What I think is some folks have listening PREFERENCES and things within the music which one format can show 'better' than the other.
agreed! - some recordings i prefer the digital version - some on the tuntable - it seems there is no rhyme or reason
too me - the actual recording has to be good - if its not i cant listen to it either digitally or on a turntable
-
And the beat goes on, ever since the mid 80's. :duh:
I blame TAS for that. The whole analogue digital debate is much ado about nothing.
-
I blame TAS for that. The whole analogue digital debate is much ado about nothing.
I had a real funny experience at the CES show one year. Three of the top TAS reviewers and I were in a room comparing digital and analogue. To their dismay, they picked the digital $1K Cal Labs CD player over an expensive $4k VTL turntable, arm, and cartridge. I had a good laugh. :lol:
-
I had a real funny experience at the CES show one year. Three of the top TAS reviewers and I were in a room comparing digital and analogue. To their dismay, they picked the digital $1K Cal Labs CD player over an expensive $4k VTL turntable, arm, and cartridge. I had a good laugh. :lol:
10x funnier is to do the only valid way to compare "digital" to "analog". Run a parallel output off the turntable, tape, etc through an ADC/DAC, compare level matched output vs original.
Look on analog proponent faces when they can't tell difference....priceless :lol:
-
You old guys grew up on vinyl, so you're gonna have a nostalgic bias towards the undefinable "vinyl sound." That's understandable. Personally, I haven't heard a vinyl system that sounded better than digital, even the mega-dollar systems at audio shows.
-
10x funnier is to do the only valid way to compare "digital" to "analog". Run a parallel output off the turntable, tape, etc through an ADC/DAC, compare level matched output vs original.
Look on analog proponent faces when they can't tell difference....priceless :lol:
Right on. :thumb:
-
It will depend on the DAC you are using in the comparison.
Can be real close here. It is what it is and you are at the mercy of the recording and the software anyway.
-
10x funnier is to do the only valid way to compare "digital" to "analog". Run a parallel output off the turntable, tape, etc through an ADC/DAC, compare level matched output vs original.
Look on analog proponent faces when they can't tell difference....priceless :lol:
So if one cant tell the difference one should just go with the cheaper product?
-
So if one cant tell the difference one should just go with the cheaper product?
Almost always, digital.
Compare price of digital vs. vinyl recordings.
-
You old guys grew up on vinyl..."
53 ain't that old. And no, I don't miss it one bit.
-
You old guys grew up on vinyl, so you're gonna have a nostalgic bias towards the undefinable "vinyl sound." That's understandable. Personally, I haven't heard a vinyl system that sounded better than digital, even the mega-dollar systems at audio shows.
Grew up on it but got rid of my last turntable records over 30 years ago (and wasn't super young at that point) . Vinyl can sound excellent. Like everything else it is dependent and the source and the equipment. No plans to even dabble it into at any time. Quite thrilled by digital in multiple systems.
-
Digital music is like watching a movie. A movie is filled with still pictures presented to the eye (then the brain) and the brain translates it into something that mimics reality. That is why most people become very tired after watching movies for a relatively short time. Digital music is in the same order. The brain has to work to put it together, while its analog counterpart happens naturally...........
-
All music is analog. Some of it ("digital music") may start out as digital, but the DAC converts that to analog signals which we hear as music.
BTW, the eye is a direct extension of our brain -- it is in fact, brain tissue. But unlike the cortex, the eyes do have pain receptors. Just saying. :thumb:
-
So if one cant tell the difference one should just go with the cheaper product?
That's completely unrelated. The test is to see whether it's really the source/mastering etc that makes the difference. If one can't hear any, then the digital is transparent to the source, in this case analog playback in whatever form. Yes, you get the snap, crackle, pop and hiss. But that's the point. Cost is a red herring.
Most can certainly hear the difference between el cheapo vs expensive TT+ cartridges. There, going with cheaper product indeed has a penalty. Again, totally unrelated to the above test of "digital vs analog"
-
Digital music is like watching a movie. A movie is filled with still pictures presented to the eye (then the brain) and the brain translates it into something that mimics reality. That is why most people become very tired after watching movies for a relatively short time. Digital music is in the same order. The brain has to work to put it together, while its analog counterpart happens naturally...........
Hopefully you are joking
-
30 years ago I would have said that "Listening to Digitally derived music was a step in the wrong direction from Analog recordings". I couldn't honestly say I've felt the same way for several years now .
It really isn't a forgone conclusion that Digital will be at least as enjoyable to listen to as "good" Analog recordings,but the potential for this to happen is quite different then it once was. The funny thing is, is that some of favorite recordings started out as Analog mastered recordings. A good recording is a good recording, regardless of the format it's in. (By the same token I have a few "completely" Digital recordings that I think are the equal of any recordings I've heard)
Everyone's ears are slightly different in how they hear things.
-
Hopefully you are joking
No I'm not.
-
That's completely unrelated. The test is to see whether it's really the source/mastering etc that makes the difference. If one can't hear any, then the digital is transparent to the source, in this case analog playback in whatever form. Yes, you get the snap, crackle, pop and hiss. But that's the point. Cost is a red herring.
Most can certainly hear the difference between el cheapo vs expensive TT+ cartridges. There, going with cheaper product indeed has a penalty. Again, totally unrelated to the above test of "digital vs analog"
So if cost is unrelated , which one is better digital or analog?
-
If I've invested $x in my digital playback system, and $3x in my vinyl playback, I'm going to look first at a quality vinyl pressing if its price is within my means. Just sayin'. It ain't true (I'm mainly digital...), but $ is a factor, at least for me. :roll:
-
The analogy between digital audio and movies doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. A movie has 30 frames per second to try and simulate continuous analog motion to the brain. A digital audio file has a minimum of 44,100 "frames" per second to simulate continuous analog sound.
-
With modern recording equipment and an effort in mastering, I have no doubt that no one could tell the difference between an analog vinyl album and a digital recording - if that is the aim.
I've said for years (along with others, of course) that the real "problem" with digital is more with the recording, mastering and the equipment used. If one doesn't like "digital" recordings, it's not the fault of the digital domain.
-
From a purely mathematical standpoint, an approximation (digital sampling) cannot be as good as the thing sampled. Digital is an inherently lossy medium. The question is, is that loss humanly perceptible?
The perceptibility of loss depends on many production and reproduction factors and therefore it's not possible to say one medium will be consistently superior in sound quality for an end user.
In my personal experience, I have abandoned vinyl playback for digital files. All my vinyl records were digitized to DSD single rate DSF files. The analog to digital converter I used, a PS Audio NuWave Phono Converter, offered the option of converting analog to PCM at 44.1k, 88.2k, 96k, 176.4k, and 192k. Analog could also be converted to single or double rate DSD. My DAC does not play double rate DSD, therefore PCM rates and DSD1 were compared, with DSD1 being the consistent winner. In every case when the LP was compared (A/B'ed) to its digitized DSD version, the DSD file had more overall clarity, more detail, more image weight, and a more three-dimensional sound stage. The bass impact, tactile sensation, bass articulation, and bass detail of the DSD file were significantly better.
To be fair, my turntable system (Ortofon MC Windfeld cartridge, Graham Phantom II tonearm, Teres Audio Model 255 turntable, Teres Audio Reference II motor-$14,654 total MSRP) was at a serious disadvantage compared to my digital sources (Bryston BDP-2 digital player, dCS Debussy DAC, dCS Puccini U-Clock master clock-$20,500 total MSRP). Undoubtedly, since the turntable was in the same room as my very large loudspeakers, acoustic feedback from the loudspeakers, and the room, had some effect on the turntable's performance. The LP digital transfers were produced in a quiet room while monitoring the recording through headphones. Therefore, there was no acoustic feedback to the turntable during the digital transfer process. If I were fortunate enough to have had the luxury of placing my turntable in an acoustically isolated room away from the loudspeakers, it's possible the turntable would have consistently won in a comparison to my digital front end. It is also possible that a more resolving (and more expensive) analog system could have overcome the acoustic feedback issues in the listening room and provided a better presentation than the digital sources.
Prior to the listening trials between vinyl and DSD files derived from the vinyl, I did several comparisons of the LP, CD and SACD versions of some of my albums. The results were mixed. Sometimes I didn't perceive a difference among the various media versions. Sometimes one or the other version sounded better in some aspects.
Prior to my vinyl digitization project, the best sounding recordings I had, in terms of image realism, clarity, and detail, were the Classic Records 45 rpm single-sided 4-disc 180 gram vinyl versions of Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" and Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue". These two recordings sounded better than any CD or SACD in my collection, and their DSD versions transcribed from vinyl sounded better still, even better than the commercial SACD versions of these recordings.
It is inconceivable that I would ever want to return to the maintenance and operational inconveniences of vinyl playback.
-
Digital music is like watching a movie.
False analogy. Visual and audio perception are very different. See 3rd from bottom link http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/jj.htm (http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/jj.htm).
That is why most people become very tired after watching movies for a relatively short time.
Evidence please, not myth or anecdote, thanks.
Digital music is in the same order. The brain has to work to put it together, while its analog counterpart happens naturally...........
Evidence please, not myth or anecdote, thanks.
I don't doubt that there are a small number folks with conditions like photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) and the "digital" audio condition you describe, when some see digital. But folks worldwide in normal mental heath can see/listen to digital for hours without adverse effects.
YMMV
-
which one is better digital or analog?
Whichever you prefer
-
Whichever you prefer
Then I prefer the cheaper one. :wink: :lol:
-
Hopefully you are joking
He should be referring to low grade digital as PCM32 or 44kHz.
The worst media I have listen was analog Cassette courtesy from Dutch Philips.
-
False analogy. Visual and audio perception are very different. See 3rd from bottom link http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/jj.htm (http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/jj.htm).
Evidence please, not myth or anecdote, thanks.
Evidence please, not myth or anecdote, thanks.
I don't doubt that there are a small number folks with conditions like photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) and the "digital" audio condition you describe, when some see digital. But folks worldwide in normal mental heath can see/listen to digital for hours without adverse effects.
YMMV
Lets see, you've dissected every word that I have stated (and those were my opinion) and then you refer me to having mental health conditions.
Nice guy (not).
-
Ok, so like the article author, you have zero evidence.
you refer me to having mental health conditions.
Nope, my comments were generic. Sorry if you saw some reflection.
Fact is, most folks can enjoy both, without any such concocted drama
-
After reading this article, who really cares. You like what you like, that's it.
Looks like a filler in a magazine taking up print space for the month..
Just enjoy the music
-
,
-
Lets see, you've dissected every word that I have stated (and those were my opinion) and then you refer me to having mental health conditions.
Nice guy (not).
But you didn't present them as opinions. If you present stuff that you believe as fact, understand that it will be challenged. And no one questioned your mental health... but if watching a movie quickly makes you fatigued, you might want to have that checked out; that's not normal.
-
I did not know that listening digital music is like watching a movie, how people perceive reality in this world always surprises me.
-
Um, with audio, the ear is not presented with a discrete aka "digital" signal - it is given an analog signal, generated from a digital source via a digital-to-analog convertor.
With video, we actually are presented with discrete frames.
-
Um, I realize the digital signal has been "reconstructed" into an analog signal and presented to the ear via the normal chain. However, this signal is like reconstituted food. It might look like it, but it ain't it and I personally believe that the brain knows there is something wrong with what it hears and tries to convince itself that the source is naturally analog, but it is not.
I believe that there are people that can perceive digitally sourced music, much as wine tasters can pinpoint where a wine came from (regionally), what vineyard it came from and the year.
Obviously, the rest of the world has issues with the digital format, otherwise, why would there still be constant attempts at making it better. Obviously (again) there must be some "golden ears" that can still hear the graininess of a digital source, no matter how high or deep the sampling rate.
I, personally, seem to become bothered by longer periods of music listening sessions with digital as the source. I never seem to have that problem with vinyl.
-
I, personally, seem to become bothered by longer periods of music listening sessions with digital as the source. I never seem to have that problem with vinyl.
Sounds like you have an issue with your digital source.
-
Obviously, the rest of the world has issues with the digital format, otherwise, why would there still be constant attempts at making it better.
Come on, this is utterly laughable and could just as well be restated as... Obviously, the rest of the world has issues with the analogue format, otherwise, why would there still be constant attempts at making it better.
-
I realize the digital signal has been "reconstructed" into an analog signal and presented to the ear via the normal chain.
That isn't what you said before:
Digital music is in the same order. The brain has to work to put it together ...
-
I believe that there are people that can perceive digitally sourced music
People believe all sorts of things. I detailed how to truly compare "analog vs digital" earlier. How many times have you done so?
If not, please do.
much as wine tasters can pinpoint where a wine came from (regionally), what vineyard it came from and the year.
Another really bad analogy, where belief vs reality has proven very funny indeed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine))
https://www.cnet.com/news/study-90-wine-tastes-better-than-the-same-wine-at-10/ (https://www.cnet.com/news/study-90-wine-tastes-better-than-the-same-wine-at-10/)
How about just just don't like digital and prefer analog purely subjectively, rather than for any specious objective reason?
-
Um, I realize the digital signal has been "reconstructed" into an analog signal and presented to the ear via the normal chain. However, this signal is like reconstituted food. It might look like it, but it ain't it and I personally believe that the brain knows there is something wrong with what it hears and tries to convince itself that the source is naturally analog, but it is not.
Early CD players, from the early to mid 1980's, used output filters that caused additional noise artifacts in the analog output. This noise was interpreted by the ear as "coldness", "harshness", and "digital glare". Well-designed modern digital players don't have these issues. Compounding the problems with early digital recordings was the fact that recording studio personnel had a steep learning curve with learning how to make good digital recordings, just as film photographers had a steep learning curve when transitioning from film to digital cameras.
Many of the most popular music titles have gone through several "digital re-masterings" to correct the recording errors made in previous digital editions.
I believe that there are people that can perceive digitally sourced music, much as wine tasters can pinpoint where a wine came from (regionally), what vineyard it came from and the year.
With wine, there are "flavor profiles" that can describe and catalog the differences in taste, aroma, appearance, and mouthfeel of a particular vintage. I am not aware of such an effort being made pertaining to digital recordings. Specifically, I don't know of any study that has shown that digital recordings have sound characteristics unique to them and distinct from analog recordings. It is certainly possible to distinguish a bad recording from a good one, if one knows what to listen for. The sound quality defects I have heard on digital recordings I have also heard on bad analog recordings.
Obviously, the rest of the world has issues with the digital format, otherwise, why would there still be constant attempts at making it better. Obviously (again) there must be some "golden ears" that can still hear the graininess of a digital source, no matter how high or deep the sampling rate.
Continuous improvement is not necessarily a sign of poor design. With analog, there are constant efforts at improving turntable materials, construction methods, and drive motors. There are continuous efforts at improving cartridge and tonearm designs.
From a commercial standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to keep improving digital formats since most audio consumers listen to music via digital media, and especially portable digital media such as cell phones and iPods.
I, personally, seem to become bothered by longer periods of music listening sessions with digital as the source. I never seem to have that problem with vinyl.
Listening fatigue is a very real phenomena. However, I would ask about the quality of your digital source (and quality of your digital media) compared to the quality of your vinyl source (and vinyl media). Are they of comparable quality and resolution?
-
That isn't what you said before:
Its still a saw toothed signal buried in a sine wave.
-
A good recordding is a good recordding
-
Or your analog system is so inferior, you can't recognize the differences.
-
BTW, none of you have brought forth any facts on this topic. You invited someone with an opposing view to the topic, then form a gang and beat the opposition up.
Perhaps John, you should change the title of this thread to "Digital is the superior" so the OP wont have anyone with opposing views. After all, if everyone is in agreement, it must be right, right?
So far, the thread has questioned my mental health, the quality of my digital system and mocked some of my (perhaps not the best of examples) of what I feel is wrong with digital.
Maybe the group could try convincing people why digital is superior without the mob mentality.
-
BTW, none of you have brought forth any facts on this topic. You invited someone with an opposing view to the topic, then form a gang and beat the opposition up.
Perhaps John, you should change the title of this thread to "Digital is the superior" so the OP wont have anyone with opposing views. After all, if everyone is in agreement, it must be right, right?
So far, the thread has questioned my mental health, the quality of my digital system and mocked some of my (perhaps not the best of examples) of what I feel is wrong with digital.
Maybe the group could try convincing people why digital is superior without the mob mentality.
Nobody is ganging up on you, Wayner. If you say something assertively (as you most certainly did) and a lot of people see that and respond in kind, they are not ganging up on you. They are all independently responding to something they feel is incorrect. I get that you think digital is like a fluorescent light. I also get that you are a fundamentally regressive individual. What you need to recognize is the FACT that analog sound reproduction has been obsoleted. Of course there will be Chauvinists like you and me who hang onto analog like it was our youth but the world has moved on. OTA TV and our beloved radio stations are headed briskly toward demise or revision. Everything in our lives functions at the mercy and/or assistance of ones and zeroes and how they are arranged. It all comes down to Yin and Yang. Napoleon will not be returning. Give it up.
-
I listen to 95% vinyl for reasons that appeal to me. Is my digital better? Yeah it is.
But just throwing out uninformed statements like " most people are quickly fatigued watching digital movies" or "digital audio is like digital video" is just B.S. You state crap as fact and build false arguments around it, and people are going to call you on it. You are incorrect in crying that you are being abused because of your position. It's how you defend your position that is drawing disagreement.
-
Its still a saw toothed signal buried in a sine wave.
No. The waveform output from the dac is as continuous as the output from an analog source. Only difference would be the low pass filter >22k.
Worse, you have access to an ABX comparator and could easily run the test I described earlier, post your results.
But doubtful you ever will.
BTW, none of you have brought forth any facts on this topic.
LOL
-
Or your analog system is so inferior, you can't recognize the differences.
:scratch:
So why does FVA build dacs?
Facts?
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
-
Go over to the Audioshark forum. Many of the guys there will tell you that vinyl sounds better than digital. I am with Wayner on this one. Digital and Vinyl may look the same but in your mind you know they sound different and something is missing from digital. I have an audiophile friend who is in his 30's and had not heard vinyl. When he heard my modest analog system he immediately said he gets vinyl and loved the sound and would love to buy a TT.
However, bad analog sounds just as bad as bad digital.
-
I listen to 95% vinyl for reasons that appeal to me. Is my digital better? Yeah it is.
But just throwing out uninformed statements like " most people are quickly fatigued watching digital movies" or "digital audio is like digital video" is just B.S. You state crap as fact and build false arguments around it, and people are going to call you on it. You are incorrect in crying that you are being abused because of your position. It's how you defend your position that is drawing disagreement.
If you claim digital is better, why do you listen to 95% vinyl?...what are these reasons that appeal to you?
-
Go over to the Audioshark forum. Many of the guys there will tell you that vinyl sounds better than digital. I am with Wayner on this one. Digital and Vinyl may look the same but in your mind you know they sound different and something is missing from digital.
Believe what you want to believe. Broad generalizations about this vs that are meaningless. Only a fool would assert otherwise.
-
I've heard digital recordings suppressed to the level of vinyl and still sound better,can anyone tell me why?
-
Many of the guys there will tell you that vinyl sounds better than digital. Digital and Vinyl may look the same but in your mind you know they sound different and something is missing from digital.
Right, because they prefer it and cannot discern between preference and facts.
Those are the faces I love to see after the test. Priceless. :thumb:
-
@Bendingwave
I have a hard time keeping my digital rig from crashing due to a monopoly by my phone/internet provider and iffy electricity supply in the country. Seems like it takes 15 minutes to get it going whenever I want to listen to a tune... so I just grab a vinyl and spin. I'm just a low tech guy.
And I like the sound of my vinyl rig. But there is no doubt that the digital has better detail and more spacial clues.
-
Believe what you want to believe. Broad generalizations about this vs that are meaningless. Only a fool would assert otherwise.
I did not mean that those guys are right. Just saying there are a lot of guys there that prefer analog. Digital and Vinyl sound different, no right or wrong. Poorly recorded vinyl sounds like crap. Good vinyl on a good system sounds great as does good digital. Vinyl is smoother and more natural to me. Digital recorded music on vinyl sounds different than analog on vinyl. There are a lot of things that have to be matched properly for vinyl to sound great. You need a good cartridge to match your TT and it has to be properly aligned along with the proper compliance and weight, the TT and tone arm have to be adjusted just right. The phono preamp has to be a good fit and not cheap junk. Its the same for digital, you need a good DAC, cable and music player. But more things to go wrong with analog.
I listen to a lot more digital than vinyl for a number of reasons but I love the sound of my well recorded vinyl and prefer it.
-
Right, because they prefer it and cannot discern between preference and facts.
Those are the faces I love to see after the test. Priceless. :thumb:
And you are one of the guys that hang out at AS. :)
-
Worn out records vs indestructible digital files
Where i live some good records stores recently closed... :cry:
-
Like pounding one's head into the ground vs. repeatedly slamming one's head in the door.
:deadhorse:
-
I would not say one is superior or inferior to the other; they are simply different. I think also that it's important to not lose sight of the fact that digital requires two conversion steps, as the source and the final output are stubbornly in the analog domain. Broadly speaking when you convert formats, you introduce aberrations that are unique to the conversion process.
I personally have a use for both. The issues are different, requiring different remedies to minimize or if possible, eliminate them. Elimination is difficult, managing is usually the best that can be achieved. Certainly digital is more convenient in the current world ... if all we had were CDs the convenience advantages would not be as great. But that's not the case today.
I don't mind a little inconvenience if the reward proves worthwhile, so flipping vinyl is not, to me, a detriment I'm not willing to suffer, just like how I enjoy my older, electronic-nanny free, manual transmission car. But I would not want to give up modern washers and dryers and go back to slapping my jeans against rocks. Horses for courses.
-
And you are one of the guys that hang out at AS. :)
Yep personal friends with many there, so I have access to many a SOTA analog source systems, but unlike many, am cognizant of personal preference not being absolute.
I also am able to comprehend what a true "analog vs digital" comparison would entail, hence me spelling it out. I've heard some analog/vinyl that sound better than the corresponding digital (often CD) release and vice versa. I've also seen the results of the true test myself.
So I don't come up with false dichotomies and absurd objective "reasons" (sawtooth, "fatigue", etc) for preferring one or the other. I can enjoy both without psychogenic drama.
YMMV.
-
I've heard digital recordings suppressed to the level of vinyl and still sound better,can anyone tell me why?
They dont have tricks and pops surface noises imo.
-
Yep personal friends with many there, so I have access to many a SOTA analog source systems, but unlike many, am cognizant of personal preference not being absolute.
I also am able to comprehend what a true "analog vs digital" comparison would entail, hence me spelling it out. I've heard some analog/vinyl that sound better than the corresponding digital (often CD) release and vice versa. I've also seen the results of the true test myself.
So I don't come up with false dichotomies and absurd objective "reasons" (sawtooth, "fatigue", etc) for preferring one or the other. I can enjoy both without psychogenic drama.
YMMV.
No drama for me, just others creating it. I am just stating my preferences. I too have heard the same recordings that sound better on vinyl and visa versa. For me, it is not about chasing the last bit if detail and resolution that digital can give any more. I have been there and done that. Vinyl just sounds different and is more pleasing to me and I am not saying one is better than the other just that they are different. I could care less about measurements and spec's. Digital has more pluses than minuses compared to vinyl.
Enough said, I'm out :thumb:
-
Is chicken really inferior to beef?
Is white wine really inferior to red wine?
Is prose really inferior to poetry?
Are brunettes really inferior to blondes?
Is solid state really inferior to tubes?
Is copper really inferior to silver?
Is Ferrari really inferior to Lamborghini?
Is monopole really inferior to dipole?
Is Nikon really inferior to Canon?
What else can you come up with? :icon_twisted:
-
Is chicken really inferior to beef?
No, chicken can be easily cut with a straight continuous blade, while beef usually requires a sawtooth edge.
Chicken better
-
No , no and no. Just depends what digital source one is using. Yes yes and yes when premiere analog is used over inexpensive digital. So yes and no just depends on components used.
charles
-
Is chicken really inferior to beef?
Nope.
Is white wine really inferior to red wine?
water please
Is prose really inferior to poetry?
yes
Are brunettes really inferior to blondes?
Hell NO!
Is solid state really inferior to tubes?
Nope
Is copper really inferior to silver?
Nope
Is Ferrari really inferior to Lamborghini?
My experience says no
Is monopole really inferior to dipole?
Definitely not
Is Nikon really inferior to Canon?
You mean Canon inferior to Nikon? Yes!
What else can you come up with? :icon_twisted:
These are my opinions based on years of "research". :P
-
Nope.
water please
yes
Hell NO!
Nope
Nope
My experience says no
Definitely not
You mean Canon inferior to Nikon? Yes!
These are my opinions based on years of "research". :P
Jason, love it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
charles
-
No, chicken can be easily cut with a straight continuous blade, while beef usually requires a sawtooth edge.
Chicken better
AJ beef needs no special blade. Well good beef anyway. Cut mine with my fork.
charles
-
Is chicken really inferior to beef?
Is white wine really inferior to red wine?
Is prose really inferior to poetry?
Are brunettes really inferior to blondes?
Is solid state really inferior to tubes?
Is copper really inferior to silver?
Is Ferrari really inferior to Lamborghini?
Is monopole really inferior to dipole?
Is Nikon really inferior to Canon?
What else can you come up with? :icon_twisted:
Is the earth really flat?
The Shaq and many others say so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/shaquille-oneal-says-earth-is-flat-2017-3
https://www.facebook.com/FlatEarthToday/?ref=br_rs
So come back 2000+ years from now, many will stitll be discussing this subject.
-
AJ beef needs no special blade. Well good beef anyway. Cut mine with my fork.
Yeah but 3 guys on the chicken forum said chicken is better, so chicken is better. Beef makes people dizzy and fatigued. It's a fact.
Just a huge coincidence that I prefer chicken as well.
-
Most recorded "popular" genres of music are (from the early recordings to present) are of mediocre SQ to make this whole discussion of whether or not one format is a "poor stepchild" of the other a Moot point !
To say that one is superior (or how many channels are actually necessary) only tells me that someone "Really" hasn't heard the best that each format has to offer !!!
It's pretty funny that people want to compare anything that is completely Subjective & based on the level of everyone's individual level of personal experience. You can give all the examples of why something should work the way you've explained things, but "should" is just 1 person's perspective (unless other people are doing your listening for you) (Which would explain a lot to me given some of these discussions)
-
Still.
There is something missing, in a recording -- ANY recording, that marks it as NOT a live performance. A Black Hole in our brain's perceptual circuits, that allows us to say, sub-consciously or not, that this is a recording, and not a live perf. No matter what the $$ of the gear is.
Is it the actual performers (obviously)? Something else? :scratch:
-
Still.
There is something missing, in a recording -- ANY recording, that marks it as NOT a live performance. A Black Hole in our brain's perceptual circuits, that allows us to say, sub-consciously or not, that this is a recording, and not a live perf. No matter what the $$ of the gear is.
Is it the actual performers (obviously)? Something else? :scratch:
He,he,he........ Which is why whenever possible I rarely hesitate to select "Representational Recordings" if I have an option for the music that I'm buying !
All recordings are interpretive representations of the music (by nature). With "Rep. recording" the RE (If the Label will allow it;It's more expensive to record this way)uses a different microphone placement technique that will be a combination of direct & non direct sound that will be an attempt to capture how the performance sounded "live" in that location. It's next to impossible to reproduce the actual sound of "Live", but if you try to respect how the performance location is affecting the actual "sound of live music making" the results can be step closer to that objective !
My favorite series of recorded music to date would have to be "The Anthology of the RCO/Live". The Concercebouw(sp) was considered the World's best Concert Hall for a good number of years. As good as these Orchestral recordings sound I can't imagine how great things must have actually sounded
-
There is something missing, in a recording -- ANY recording, that marks it as NOT a live performance.
Is it the actual performers (obviously)? Something else?
Well, to open another can of worms, :icon_twisted: I have not heard recently a live concert (amplified) that I prefer over great recordings/performances on my system. Amplified performances are just so painful for me these days. :cry:
-
Well, to open another can of worms, :icon_twisted: I have not heard recently a live concert (amplified) that I prefer over great recordings/performances on my system. Amplified performances are just so painful for me these days. :cry:
I agree with you here, I went to two live arena concerts Kiss & Chili Peppers and the recordings sound better, but I had nose bleed seats.
Blue Rodeo on the otherhand some ten years ago at our auditorium. My stereo then wasn't even in the ballpark. The stereo I have now (digital) sounds like the real thing, I am there again experience. I can say that about Rush as well, seen them in '77 & '78 and the album 'All the World's Stage' as well as Farewell to Kings' sounds like the real thing as I recall being there. :drool:
PS: I have the BCD-3.
-
Well, to open another can of worms, :icon_twisted: I have not heard recently a live concert (amplified) that I prefer over great recordings/performances on my system. Amplified performances are just so painful for me these days. :cry:
Do a classical symphony, vocal, or chamber concert.
No amplification. Just you, the instruments, performers, and some gorgeous acoustics in a hall designed just for acoustic near-perfection. Concertgebouw. Musikverein. Winspear Centre.
@Mag. Hard rock concerts are pure noise disguised as....? Catering to big crowds spread across massive spaces. Not always bad, but they can't be held up on as examples of what well-engineered recordings should aspire to. Much as I like rock (Boss, Rush, Led Zep, Floyd), have not been to a live Rock concert in years. Prefer the cleaned-up recs. Vinyl and CD. (I have BCD-1 + BDA-1) :thumb:
-
[quote author=CanadianMaestro link=topic=150380.msg1609889#msg1609889 date=14955028
@Mag. Hard rock concerts are pure noise disguised as....? Catering to big crowds spread across massive spaces. Not always bad, but they can't be held up on as examples of what well-engineered recordings should aspire to. Much as I like rock (Boss, Rush, Led Zep, Floyd), have not been to a live Rock concert in years. Prefer the cleaned-up recs. Vinyl and CD. (I have BCD-1 + BDA-1) :thumb:
[/quote]
The BDA-1 is a good dac I have it, I use to have a BCD-1. I however piggy back the BDA-1 with my SP2 dac, as good as this combo is, the BCD-3 is more transparent using bypass mode. If the cd mix is good then the recording will sound stellar with the BCD-3. Crap mixes just reveal how lousy the mix really is.
I have a few classical recordings not a lot, my best classical reference is Morricone and some movie soundtracks and a Mozart. I also have some Beethoven and Schubert's 8th unfinished. :smoke:
-
Speaking of a live band it reminded me of this video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lmXi1y1fzs
-
There's no such thing is there? No live performance can be reproduced in anyones home setting. It's just a matter of size, which does matter in this case..
How could any setup come close to a hall of concert dimensions. Let alone an opera performance fit in the living-setup. Mine is called auditorium, but it doesn't help ;-((
Then again, i always find it just as difficult/impossible to listen to a recording of a solo singer, lets say doing Schubert's Winterreise, and not have the setup fault in the loud passages. Somehow these recordings are so compressed one has to up the volume in the soft passages, and hurry to the remote in the louder ones.
And i am forgoing the hall's acoustic for a minute, which is the signature of any good recording. No close miking for the inner voices please, just let the musicians do their jobs well, and have the conductor be the master of sound. No after mixing, cause with the setup on discussion here, all is heard. Not for the better.
As a note about the Concertgebouw here: it is wonderful indeed, still is, and makes any ugly sound sound beautiful ;) Difficult to play though cause one hears mostly one-self ;)
btw, recordings are made off-stage there, in the auditorium with all seats taken out.
Cheers,
Marius
He,he,he........ Which is why whenever possible I rarely hesitate to select "Representational Recordings" if I have an option for the music that I'm buying !
All recordings are interpretive representations of the music (by nature). With "Rep. recording" the RE (If the Label will allow it;It's more expensive to record this way)uses a different microphone placement technique that will be a combination of direct & non direct sound that will be an attempt to capture how the performance sounded "live" in that location. It's next to impossible to reproduce the actual sound of "Live", but if you try to respect how the performance location is affecting the actual "sound of live music making" the results can be step closer to that objective !
My favorite series of recorded music to date would have to be "The Anthology of the RCO/Live". The Concercebouw(sp) was considered the World's best Concert Hall for a good number of years. As good as these Orchestral recordings sound I can't imagine how great things must have actually sounded
-
There's no such thing is there? No live performance can be reproduced in anyones home setting. It's just a matter of size, which does matter in this case..
How could any setup come close to a hall of concert dimensions. Let alone an opera performance fit in the living-setup. Mine is called auditorium, but it doesn't help ;-((
Then again, i always find it just as difficult/impossible to listen to a recording of a solo singer, lets say doing Schubert's Winterreise, and not have the setup fault in the loud passages. Somehow these recordings are so compressed one has to up the volume in the soft passages, and hurry to the remote in the louder ones.
Almost All recordings have some level of compression, partly for the reasons you state. But I wonder if you might be a little confused about compression. If a recording is "so compressed" then the dynamic window (range) is limited. As such, the quiet passages are made louder and the loud passages are made quieter. Therefore there is no reason to turn up the volume in the soft passages - they are already too loud. If you are actively working the volume control your recording is "too dynamic", not compressed.
-
Speaking of a live band it reminded me of this video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lmXi1y1fzs
The playback was awfull, even consider the musical program was simple percussion music, not a string section full of filigree and harmonics.
-
How could any setup come close to a hall of concert dimensions. Let alone an opera performance fit in the living-setup. Mine is called auditorium, but it doesn't help ;-((
Then again, i always find it just as difficult/impossible to listen to a recording of a solo singer, lets say doing Schubert's Winterreise, and not have the setup fault in the loud passages. Somehow these recordings are so compressed one has to up the volume in the soft passages, and hurry to the remote in the louder ones.
And i am forgoing the hall's acoustic for a minute, which is the signature of any good recording. No close miking for the inner voices please, just let the musicians do their jobs well, and have the conductor be the master of sound. No after mixing, cause with the setup on discussion here, all is heard. Not for the better.
Cheers,
Marius
Yes, but if an opera singer was in your living room projecting like they do on stage, I'm sure you'd want some compression on him or her too! :lol:
-
^ If it's Wagner being sung in my LR, I would do more than compress him/her!
-
Compressors are a tool and should be used as that when necessary as doing by bass players, not to increase sound volume in master recordings.
The prob is compression dont embellish the music.
-
Yes, but if an opera singer was in your living room projecting like they do on stage, I'm sure you'd want some compression on him or her too! :lol:
nope. I love opera. Having Maria Callas full blast is a blessing.
(I too have a full voice. Once at work in a typical HR 'kill the messenger' meeting, I was speaking with a little emphasis.. The HR creature said (to get the dig into the record) I was 'shouting'.
So I turned to her and using my 'full' voice. said in a good loud but fully controlled tone "THIS IS SHOUTING". Their ears had to be still ringing hours afterwards.
The Union steward was impressed.)
-
nope. I love opera. Having Maria Callas full blast is a blessing.
(I too have a full voice. Once at work in a typical HR 'kill the messenger' meeting, I was speaking with a little emphasis.. The HR creature said (to get the dig into the record) I was 'shouting'.
So I turned to her and using my 'full' voice. said in a good loud but fully controlled tone "THIS IS SHOUTING". Their ears had to be still ringing hours afterwards.
The Union steward was impressed.)
No wonder you're a Bryston fan.
-
Lol.
When rehearsing Forza del Destino, we once had a tenor only able to sing too loud. (putting it mildly here..) When the conductor, reluctantly, dared to ask him to sing a bit more as Verdi prescribed, he answered, angrily: IM SORRY, BUT THATS MY VOICE...
which if course was the end of an otherwise very nice production ;-)
Cheers, Marius
btw, Maria Callas singing anything is a blessing. Full blast or mezzo voce, and all else for that matter. Taking my daughter to her first opera will be the next Carmen in Paris. Prepping for that I showed her Callas' Habanera.
Another one down for La Divina in this household.
nope. I love opera. Having Maria Callas full blast is a blessing.
(I too have a full voice. Once at work in a typical HR 'kill the messenger' meeting, I was speaking with a little emphasis.. The HR creature said (to get the dig into the record) I was 'shouting'.
So I turned to her and using my 'full' voice. said in a good loud but fully controlled tone "THIS IS SHOUTING". Their ears had to be still ringing hours afterwards.
The Union steward was impressed.)
-
Almost All recordings have some level of compression, partly for the reasons you state. But I wonder if you might be a little confused about compression. If a recording is "so compressed" then the dynamic window (range) is limited. As such, the quiet passages are made louder and the loud passages are made quieter. Therefore there is no reason to turn up the volume in the soft passages - they are already too loud. If you are actively working the volume control your recording is "too dynamic", not compressed.
HI Bob,
check, you're right. mixed it up a bit.. Guess what i wanted to say is real life dynamics don't fit in the Living room, especially when the recordings use the full dynamic range available. Which leaves us live performance lovers wanting all the time...
Chees,
Marius
-
Yes, but if an opera singer was in your living room projecting like they do on stage, I'm sure you'd want some compression on him or her too! :lol:
the good ones project to the back wall of the auditorium. Should be a lot easier in my Living than in the Opera Hall...
but even in a small setting, when a real singer/musician is playing live, they produce a lot of sound. Try this: just have someone talk while playing some heavy music recording on a significant volume level. You can always hear the talking (real live experience speaking here ...)
Cheers,
Marius
-
Pavaroti favorite soprano wasnt Callas but Joan Sutherland.
(http://store.acousticsounds.com/images/large/UDEC_SXL6828__76820__08022011085817-9989.jpg)
-
Taking my daughter to her first opera will be the next Carmen in Paris. Prepping for that I showed her Callas' Habanera.
Another one down for La Divina in this household.
Saw Carmen at the Wiener Staatsoper in 2013. Elina Garanca and Alagna. Superb.
Garanca is the best mezzo today. Her disc, Meditation, is my go-to to chill late night.
-
Pavaroti favorite soprano wasnt Callas but Joan Sutherland.
(http://store.acousticsounds.com/images/large/UDEC_SXL6828__76820__08022011085817-9989.jpg)
A well, don't get me started. Amazing singers all the way, both Sutherland and Pavarotti had that natural capacity of singing effortlessly and reaching deep within. Hard to find in todays style of operatic singing, especially the male ones.
Enjoy these glorious voices. Add a stupendous orchestra, and you have my all time favorite Turandot: https://www.amazon.com/Puccini-Turandot-Sutherland-Pavarotti-Ghiaurov/dp/B0000041Q3
Non Piangere Liu, and don't stop weeping......
Ciao,
Marius
-
We may be approaching a new record for the distance strayed from original topic. We've touched on halls but not yet microphones, costumes or traffic en route to venue. Any plans to return to topic?
-
We may be approaching a new record for the distance strayed from original topic. We've touched on halls but not yet microphones, costumes or traffic en route to venue. Any plans to return to topic?
Why ??
-
A well, don't get me started. Amazing singers all the way, both Sutherland and Pavarotti had that natural capacity of singing effortlessly and reaching deep within. Hard to find in todays style of operatic singing, especially the male ones.
Enjoy these glorious voices. Add a stupendous orchestra, and you have my all time favorite Turandot: https://www.amazon.com/Puccini-Turandot-Sutherland-Pavarotti-Ghiaurov/dp/B0000041Q3
Non Piangere Liu, and don't stop weeping......
Ciao,
Marius
Too bad all Callas recordings are bad, this dificult her CDs to sell.
-
We may be approaching a new record for the distance strayed from original topic. We've touched on halls but not yet microphones, costumes or traffic en route to venue. Any plans to return to topic?
But we still haven't talked about the results of my dogs DNA test...
-
We may be approaching a new record for the distance strayed from original topic. We've touched on halls but not yet microphones, costumes or traffic en route to venue. Any plans to return to topic?
I'll return to original question:
No.
Some of the 'straying' tells a good story about how many factors along the way (besides the storage format) influence our experience of what we hear, though.
-
But we still haven't talked about the results of my dogs DNA test...
Quite right! I took my Akita over the vet on Wednesday of last week to be euthanized. Turned out he was actually not ready. They gave us pills for him and a bill of just over $200. Clearly my wife should not have been with me. The old boy is 108 in people years according to the chart on the vet's wall. Life expectancy of 8-10 years and he'll be 14 in October if he gets that far.
Windy - Did you find out who is the father?
-
Quite right! I took my Akita over the vet on Wednesday of last week to be euthanized. Turned out he was actually not ready.
Wow, that must have been a relief. Putting a pet down is not an easy task and yet it is the right thing to do when there's no possible hope for recovery.
Windy - Did you find out who is the father?
:lol: No, but what I did learn is that he is not a Pit Bull Rottweiler cross as previously thought. In fact there isn't any Pit Butt or Rottweiler in him. As it turns out the DNA test revealed he is a Lab crossed with a Mini Pincher with a little Border Collie and American Eskimo Dog. :o
-
Quite right! I took my Akita over the vet on Wednesday of last week to be euthanized. The old boy is 108 in people years according to the chart on the vet's wall.
Despite his age, was he able to tell the diff between a digital recording and a vinyl LP?
(There! Back on topic!)
-
Too bad all Callas recordings are bad, this dificult her CDs to sell.
Some are worse than others. Mostly the new digital masters.... Back to topic herewith.
No Digital, let alone MQA master will make the 1936 (https://www.amazon.com/Tristan-Isolde-Richard-Wagner/dp/B00004YYQL/ref=pd_sbs_15_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00004YYQL&pd_rd_r=QSBBJ0SEDHRV2S16Q6WD&pd_rd_w=sHm7I&pd_rd_wg=idPcy&psc=1&refRID=QSBBJ0SEDHRV2S16Q6WD) or 1938 (http://historicaopera.blogspot.nl/2012/10/tristan-und-isolde-metropolitan-opera.html) Tristan sound any better.
Wouldn't want to be without them though.
Same goes for my hissing and popping analog 78's. All a matter of priorities.
comparing the same master on analog and digital i wouldn't be able to answer the original poster. I can say i like m both in different circumstances.
Cheers,
Marius
-
Despite his age, was he able to tell the diff between a digital recording and a vinyl LP?
(There! Back on topic!)
Throughout his long and colorful life, he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any distinction between the two, although when he wants to be readmitted to the household after a potty visit in his dog yard, he can sound downright operatic. Claims that the middle C stands for CANINE. No discussions of this kind in recent years since he went deaf a few years back. Still talks about the day Thunderbrick visited. They hit it off immediately. No one ever rolls on the floor with him like the 'brick did.
-
Wow, that must have been a relief. Putting a pet down is not an easy task and yet it is the right thing to do when there's no possible hope for recovery.
:lol: No, but what I did learn is that he is not a Pit Bull Rottweiler cross as previously thought. In fact there isn't any Pit Butt or Rottweiler in him. As it turns out the DNA test revealed he is a Lab crossed with a Mini Pincher with a little Border Collie and American Eskimo Dog. :o
Our vet stressed "quality of life" - ours and his. Said that is how to determine when to pull the plug. He thought Toke still had a bit left and sold us dog drugs to keep him in better trim. He could die any day now but he'll feel better until the day comes.
As for your dog, Windy: it sounds like he has a long and questionable lineage of loose bitches preceding him. I was tempted to lay it all on his mother until I realized that DNA probably reflects much more than one generation of history. Is that correct?
-
DNA probably reflects much more than one generation of history. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. The lab that conducted the test uses a scale of 5 levels, not generations, but levels based on the percentage of DNA.
Level 1 = 75% or greater
Level 2 = 37% - 74%
Level 3 = 20% - 36%
Level 4 = 10% - 20%
Level 5 = 9% or less
Axel is a Level 3 Lab and Level 3 Mini Pincher; Level 4 Border Collie and Level 5 American Eskimo.
When I adopted him the SPCA had me thinking he was Rotty Pit Bull.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162765)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162764)
-
I wonder if dogs vs cats is similar to LP vs digital?
I have pet birds... So I do not know what that 'format' would be? reel to reel tape??? Maybe FM radio?
I would have a dog if I owned a house. Apt dwelling is no place for a dog.
-
I wonder if dogs vs cats is similar to LP vs digital?
I have pet birds... So I do not know what that 'format' would be? reel to reel tape??? Maybe FM radio?
I would have a dog if I owned a house. Apt dwelling is no place for a dog.
I'm unable to answer with confidence. You pose a difficult question. I do know that all cats are arrogant although I cannot remember a cat stooping low enough to offer an opinion on anything. Normally they turn their noses up at everything but certain food items of their choosing - not yours. I'm sure your birds would discourage the acquisition of a cat.
-
Yes, that is correct. The lab that conducted the test uses a scale of 5 levels, not generations, but levels based on the percentage of DNA.
Level 1 = 75% or greater
Level 2 = 37% - 74%
Level 3 = 20% - 36%
Level 4 = 10% - 20%
Level 5 = 9% or less
Axel is a Level 3 Lab and Level 3 Mini Pincher; Level 4 Border Collie and Level 5 American Eskimo.
When I adopted him the SPCA had me thinking he was Rotty Pit Bull.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162765)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162764)
-
Looks like a brute. Easy to see what led to mistaken ID. I've always marveled at how people look at a dog and press a guess as to which TWO breeds combined to produce that animal. Meanwhile, as you learned recently, there can be a large number of contributors since the parents might be mixed breed also and the same with their forebears. Fact is, the pedigreed dogs have been intentionally developed, whereas guys like Axel are the result of mad unplanned passion.
-
Despite his age, was he able to tell the diff between a digital recording and a vinyl LP?
(There! Back on topic!)
But at that age he cant barely hear past 5khz. :lol:
-
"I wonder if dogs vs cats is similar to LP vs digital?"
I gave up on the whole 'cats vs. dogs' debate a long time ago. My current animal companion is a three toed sloth, named Eddie. You hardly know he's there, but every two months he climbs down from the small trees in my living room to take a shit on the floor. At first this may seem cumbersome, but Eddie is really slow. I never have to chase him around the house, and at least I have enough time to be prepared.
In about twenty years or so, when Eddie finally falls out of the tree in a soporific heap, then I'll know it's time to take him to the vet. How's that for low maintenance?
-
I owned cats all the life and dogs have much better ears for small sound details than cats.
-
I have no dog in this fight. Mrs. HsvHeelFan and I are cat people.
In the digital versus analog format wars for audio, I prefer digital. When I heard my first CD player in March of '84. I was hooked. I switched to Compact discs then and that became my primary playback medium. I kept a turntable for about another decade and by that point everything that I wanted on CD arrived on CD. I just couldn't get past the hiss and pops of vinyl.
I'm an orchestral musician and nothing beats sitting on stage and performing. When an orchestra is cranked up, EVERYTHING is vibrating. The instruments, the chairs, the stands and the stage. The whole stage is buzzing with music. There is nothing else like it. Not even sitting in the first couple of rows in the audience.
The closest thing to a magical musical performance is a great lap or series of laps in a Formula based racing car. I used to race Formula Fords in the 80's. In both instances, you're in the zone and in a lot of ways, they're really similar. Both take a lot of work, high levels of concentration and attention to detail with a lot of nuance to do it correctly.
HsvHeelFan
-
To keep this thread on topic :),, my cat loves jazz. We tried this test, she gets up when I play anything country, anything that remotely resembles rap ( I hate rap by the way) not staying in the room, classic rock she stays, and any type of jazz she lays down in the sweet spot on the carpet. Interesting
-
To keep this thread on topic :),, my cat loves jazz. We tried this test, she gets up when I play anything country, anything that remotely resembles rap ( I hate rap by the way) not staying in the room, classic rock she stays, and any type of jazz she lays down in the sweet spot on the carpet. Interesting
As your observations continue, please keep us apprised of any notable discoveries as to Kitty's preference vis a vis performers, soloists, musical compositions and/or instruments. I'm assuming she has no experience with live performances or other sound systems. Is that correct?
-
I listen to both digital and analog.
I also have both a cat and a dog.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=31400)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162810)
Some days I like the dog better; other days, the cat. :dunno:
-
I listen to both digital and analog.
I also have both a cat and a dog.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=31400)
The cat's eyes are telling me he loves the person who took that photo...
-
I have a cat. Actually I don't. It's my neighbor's cat. He has dogs and I think the cat hangs around here to avoid the dogs. The owner doesn't feed him but another neighbor does. I made a deal with the cat when he first started showing up around my place. I told him he could stay here as much as he wanted but I wasn't going to feed him. I don't want that responsibility. So he spends all his sleeping time on my porch, on the roof of my truck, on the ground, etc. Sometimes he walks with me to the hiway to check my mail. I live in the boonies.
But lately he has been sleeping on my porch roof. He climbs up the pine tree my porch is built around. I think he's avoiding my music or maybe he's found the sweet spot. Maybe I'll try it, too. :thumb:
Gene
-
Digital is a better "value" than analog so in my book that means superior. :thumb:
What does it cost to build a SOA digital vs analog system using Bryston gear?
Now add the cost of buying your current music library in an LP format.
Digital is a better value. SQ is in the ear of the listener and a matter of preference.
-
I have a cat. Actually I don't. I think he's avoiding my music or maybe he's found the sweet spot. Maybe I'll try it, too. :thumb:
Gene
Hedy Lamarr! (Avatar)
:thumb:
-
Hedy Lamarr! (Avatar)
:thumb:
Just to keep this on track, I think Hedy is better than analog, digital or anything else for that matter. :green:
Gene
-
Just to keep this on track, I think Hedy is better than analog, digital or anything else for that matter. :green:
Gene
Yes I agree with you.
All her bits are in the right places and with no jitter, either.
:thumb:
(I used to have this one as an avatar on HeadFi -- no, not Hedy, but another very prominent star)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162856)
-
THAT'S HEDLEY !!!
(http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/2/1/0/8/2/9/i/4/0/5/o/HK_RIP.jpg)
-
^ HARVEY....
-
Kim Novak walked into my frame shop last week and shook my hand.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162862)
But at 83 years old she now looks like this.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=162864)
-
And Jeff of Tone Audio's take on this subject?
I can’t believe that in 2017 audio critics are still whining and complaining about whether analog sounds better than digital. Really?
http://www.tonepublications.com/blog/digital-vs-analog-tired/
-
Good article, thanks.