[CanadianMaestro]

Article here that may stimulate further discussion:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-emperors-new-server/

[rbbert]

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...

[AJinFLA]

Cool, yet another dinosaur lamentation in writing

[Wind Chaser]

Cool, yet another dinosaur lamentation in writing

+1   

[Stercom]

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.

[witchdoctor]

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.

[Stercom]

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.

[CanadianMaestro]

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.   

[poseidonsvoice]

Cool, yet another dinosaur lamentation in writing

What a perfect synopsis! 

Best,
Anand.

[brother love]

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." 

[CanadianMaestro]

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." 

He probably appreciates his own gullibility.

[Stercom]

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.......

[CanadianMaestro]

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.

[brother love]

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 ...

[BobRex]

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.   

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?

[Stercom]

But with music, I think time and accuracy will catch up to convenience in due time, if not already.

Yep, understood and agree. 

[witchdoctor]

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.

[CanadianMaestro]

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.

[Elizabeth]

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.

[kingdeezie]

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.