Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 3334353637 38> |
| Author | ||||||||||
Dean 
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
 Posted: October 07 2012 at 13:07 |
|||||||||
What are you going to do? The music industry is notorious for not being consumer driven - the "loudness wars" are not being won by the consumer - discerning artist are fighting their corner but they are in a minority - most pop and rock artists want their latest releases to be as loud and in-you-face as everyone else's. Equipment manufacturers aren't going to build-in features that people won't use (or pay Dolby licences that give no market advantage) - if most of the music available is already compressed then the feature will not be used.
The good news for Prog fans is that we do have discerning artists who do want dynamic range in their albums - what the mainstream artists do is their concern, not ours.
|
||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
JediJoker7169
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: May 05 2009 Location: West Coast, NA Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Posted: October 07 2012 at 04:43 |
|||||||||
Why make that sacrifice? I understand the need to compress dynamics in the vinyl mastering process. But why, other than in the furtherance of transparency, should compression be applied during the digital mastering process? Why not simply build a user selectable compressor into the DAC, receiver, or preamplifier of all listening systems? It could even have a preset that matches the FCC mandated compression for radio broadcast. Or, even better, why not follow the same principle as Dolby Digital Dynamic Range Control?
I'm tired of compromise. I'm tired of otherwise excellent albums ruined by excessive dynamic compression. Why should I or anyone else have to put up with it?
Edited by JediJoker7169 - October 07 2012 at 04:50 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17524 |
Posted: September 23 2012 at 11:36 |
|||||||||
Thx ... I am "sensitive" to these moments and have always been, and it's too easy to say that because I read Castaneda, Crowley, Lilly, Monroe and many others, that drugs have something to do with it. I remember the line in Castaneda's books, and Carlos asks don Juan if the drugs were needed and the answer was ... "of course not stupid, but we had to get you to shut up for a minute to see a thing or two!" ... All in all, I'm against the drugs in concept. In experience it is another thing altogether since some folks have to "experience" things to "know". I don't ... I can tell by the colors and the feels of the words and music and such, what is there or not there ... and thus one of the main reasons why "lyrics" rarely impress me ... and the ones that are the most fun, are the ones that are always to the left, right, upside down and ... meaningless, which I find hilarious in many a moment ... like Mona Lisa you got a bird brain! This is the biggest thing that synthesized when I saw the Tom Dowd DVD, that I had few words for ... the "moment", because Tom makes it clear, that if you were not listening or paying attention, you would not find it or see it. And when you hear him separate the two special tracks from all the rest ... they are even more special together! .. and he even says .. he was lucky to capture it! A lot of this for me, has been because I always was a "close my eyes" listener to most music ... and my favorite descriptions for a lot of music can be found in "Disney's Fantasia" and "Nichetti's Allegro Non Troppo", both of which illustrate music in ways that are massive ... you got to see the Dvorak piece in Allegro Non Troppo , btw! You will love it! I think that we have a tendency to "glorify" today's technology ... always ... as the end all a nd be all ... and I am not sure that we care if we hear various differences in Beethoven, or Mozart ... it's the music itself that "delivers" that moment ... that which makes us ... appreciate it as such. As for rock bands, almost none that I ever saw, have ever sounded as good on record as they did live, or vice versa ... other than Pink Floyd, Nektar ... all the others were not the same band, and the music behind it had a completely different feeling. Nektar we all knew already because they showed it to us in "Sounds LIke This" and Pink Floyd was very clean to the recording since Dark Side of the Moon ... but NOT before, when they were completely different and you can attest that to 15 different versions of Atom Heart Mother, another 15 versions of Set the Controls to the heart of the sun, and so forth, and the clear fact that they used sound effects between pieces, and my guess always has been ... to make sure they could setup the intruments and the effects properly between pieces. Later with Dark Side of the Moon, Dave's pedal board itself was insane instead and some controls were not on his feet or hands already! The only exception to this was Led Zeppelin where at least 10 to 12 bootlegs were far superior to ANY of their albums in their first 4 years! The energy and flow was insane! But there are/were some awesome things ... Tangerine Dream was like ... another night with that lovely woman ... it's like a brand new night again! ... and you can't ask for more! It leaves you breathless ... and to me, that is what that "moment" is all about! ... the only "truth" that defines most of life and art that we love so much! ((-- On a side note ... now you know why something like Sandy Denny's last song (One More Chance) in that album is so scary and spooky ... and she sings it like she already knew! That's not a lyric for me ... that's "reality" in a way that we don't like to see, or imagine, and we could say that she had already transcended the thought, idea or concept ... now, that is a singer and then some! Only Peter Hammill has come this close in my book, btw!--))
Edited by moshkito - September 23 2012 at 11:50 |
||||||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
hobocamp
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 17 2010 Location: Fine Furniture Status: Offline Points: 525 |
Posted: September 23 2012 at 09:15 |
|||||||||
|
Isn't it a bit like the importance of steam engines in motor cars?
They were needed until a better technology came along. Some steam engine vehicles are more valuable to collectors for their authenticity : but they would almost certainly operate differently if retrofitted with petrol, diesel, or electric engines. Probably faster and quieter without the bulky steam engine; but the chassis wasn't designed for this, creating an uncomfortable and even unsafe experience. My point? be sure to use safety belts when spinning those remasters.  Edited by hobocamp - September 23 2012 at 09:18 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
octopus-4
Special Collaborator
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams Joined: October 31 2006 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 14122 |
Posted: September 23 2012 at 08:17 |
|||||||||
|
Some albums are better in vinyl, other in CD or digital formats even from the same period of the same band. IMO Atom Heart Mother is better served on Vinyl and Dark Side Of The Moon requires all of the digital "perfection". And the two albums went from the same producer, too.
It's subjective and depends also on the artists and the producers mindset at the recording time. I have a little preference for vinyl, anyway. On early CDs and CD readers the dynamic was excessive.
|
||||||||||
|
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17847 |
Posted: September 23 2012 at 02:37 |
|||||||||
|
Absolutely agree...whatever system you have if you like it then that is all that matters, the reason you like it is because your ears like it.
There are many audiophile websites I visit and post in....Discussions come up all the time about looking for perfection and what defines this search. In general I appreciate what people who are very serious about their music listening, are doing, which is basically trying to find the best system match possible. There is a lot of thought process that goes into it and it is very interesting to me to hear other peoples experiences. For many of these audiophiles it means spending a lot of money......but I also understand this is a hobby. Just like vintage cars or motorcycles are for some and are expensive to tweek, revive, rebuild.....its not cheap. Some audio gear is not cheap either...but the good thing is as long as you deal with a reputable dealer the return policy is very generous, I never found this to be the case back in the 80's-90's. I had to read Moshkito post several times, because it made a lot of sense with regard to music, it was a good read. Month in month out I listen to more digital than vinyl because I am working at my desk and I can hit play and not have to change anything for several hours. My serious listening time is spent with vinyl though, when I can sit on the sofa and pay complete attention to the speakers, and I am almost always holding the liner notes and or the gatefold sleeve, which helps take me back to the early days.....technical specs at that point mean nothing. Its all good
|
||||||||||
  
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: September 22 2012 at 22:57 |
|||||||||
Yeah...I think I mentioned this somewhere earlier in the thread. Even the advancements in synths and drum machines were driven by musicians seeking more and more perfection. And I am not sure many from the younger generation have rejected it anyway. Even though I like a lot of 70s recordings or that kind of recordings, I don't really have a problem with perfectly recorded audio per se and I guess somebody like JS19 actually prefers modern recordings to older ones. What the older generation wanted when they sought perfect recordings was somewhere disconnected with what they eventually got. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 22 2012 at 19:15 |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 22 2012 at 17:48 |
|||||||||
I never get hung-up on measurements because it is what I do for a living. That's why when non-technical people quote things like jitter, skin effect, field induction and group delay I can tell them it isn't important and I can tell them why it isn't important. Measurements tell you a lot but only if you understand them, it is when measurements get misused and abused that I get hung-up on them.
As I also have said many times before - audiophilists spent 40 years striving for perfection but when we gave them perfection they didn't want it. If you like what you hear then you have the perfect system for you. That is the be all and end all of it. No better no better no best.
Analogue - digital - I'm not that bothered - me and my ears like them both equally.
I don't like any gaseous fizzy beer, real ale is the only way to drink beer - that's not just my taste, that's just taste.
|
||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Hercules
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 14 2007 Location: Near York UK Status: Offline Points: 7024 |
Posted: September 22 2012 at 16:08 |
|||||||||
|
@ Dean
"Therefore bandwidth issues between analogue and digital are not that different in reality, however what we see empirically when we do spectral analysis of both system is significantly flatter responses in digital systems - whether that is important or not is open to debate - what it does not affect too greatly is soundstaging because the tonal soundstage you hear is pretty close to what the record producer wanted you to hear."
Unfortunately, any differences in the flatness of frequency response between digital and analogue retrieval equipment will be utterly masked by the speakers in use. No speaker I have ever tested has had a remotely flat response - some major anomalies can occur, particularly round the crossover frequencies. Ironically, this may not affect the subjective performance of the speakers. In the early 80s, my university department acquired a new design - the Tangent RS4 - which we found had an exceptionally fine acoustic performance - but analysis of its frequency response and impedance characteristics showed a very non-linear response. Yet I still have the speakers and use them from time to time and they sound very good to this day. Another design with a much more linear response sounded far worse to all the judges. I spent 6 months with the acoustics team trying to quantify why this was in terms of a mathematical/physical model and we could not put our finger on precisely why.
I think that you can get too hung up on measurements; some seem to matter a lot (wow & flutter, distortion) others are far less important. And whether you prefer digital/analogue is extremely subjective - like why some people drink lager and others drink bitter.
Me, I'm an analogue/real ale man, but that's just my taste.
|
||||||||||
|
A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17524 |
Posted: September 22 2012 at 13:10 |
|||||||||
|
Hi,
I just came up with something ... that I believe is important. First ... all the kudos to Dean, in showing what "recording" is really all about ... which is something that most of us take for granted. This is a bit of Zen ... and it does not mean that it is right or wrong! There was a moment in time, that was recorded! That moment can not be duplicated, or enhanced. It might get a "digital" idealization that makes it sound "better" because in those days there were not as many tracks as today to make the separation and the combination of these things as good as before. That moment, has, ALL the feelings and details POSSIBLE for that moment to live, die, be remembered, whatever we want to draw out of it! To think that this process, or that process, can better express that moment is, as Dean suggests a totally subjective art, that could be said to be all about preferences! However, in this, we are confusing ... the original ... for our own ideas. I commented that the rehashes of King Crimson, I just heard, were NOT any livelier to my imagination than they were when I first heard them 40 some years ago ... though they sounded much cleaner and obviously better distributed through out the ears on your headset of stereo equipment! Again, this has nothing to do with the original piece ... and how it can get to you! The HOW, or what clothes the musicians were wearing, is an issue today for advertising, not a fact of the music or its very specific moment in time! I have a hard time accepting that some folks can "hear" this today, and could not "hear" it yesterday ... so it what was it like, then, now? Or what was it like now, compared to "then" ... and as Peter Cook once said ... "smelly"! I really think that we're convincing ourselves that something is better than it really is ... it was great already! But for Robert Fripp's ears, it might have realized some recording potential that he might have enjoyed learning about 40 years ago, and worked with sooner than later! It adds to his sonic knowledge of how he plays and works with things, and this Steven Wilson is a very good helper and teacher for Robert! In reality, it tells you how many studios charged so much and created crap in the end ... and a lot of this music was really lucky to get out in one piece. REALLY LUCKY!
Edited by moshkito - September 22 2012 at 13:13 |
||||||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
JediJoker7169
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 05 2009 Location: West Coast, NA Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Posted: September 21 2012 at 17:04 |
|||||||||
Someone else made reference to Betamax vs. VHS, which is almost exactly apples to apples in the SACD vs. DVD-Audio arena: - Sony developed both Beta and SACD (the latter with Philips) - Both Beta and SACD were/are inherently superior to their rivals (VHS and DVD-Audio) - Both failed because of obstacles to adoption (licensing for Beta, host of issues for SACD) Given all the givens, I am not surprised that SACD has failed. I am not talking about consumer choices here, but industry ones. DSD is better than PCM. Any discerning artist or recording/mixing/mastering engineer can tell the difference. Sony and Philips are both bona fide industry giants. If they had marketed and licensed DSD properly, as they did S/PDIF, it should have overtaken PCM and become the new standard in digital audio off which every digital A/V filetype was based. Digital audio interfaces (studio and consumer DACs) would be running at 1-bit and sampling at 2.8 or 5.6 MHz instead of 24-bit and 96 or 192 KHz. CDs and CD players would have disappeared, replaced with lower-priced stereo SACDs. Download retailers would be selling compressed DSD files instead of PCM ones. I can't help it. I'm an idealist.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17847 |
Posted: September 21 2012 at 10:21 |
|||||||||
|
^ Perfect......I have always stated redbook playback of 16/44.1 is more than enough. I have a couple 24/96 hi-rez downloads and I cannot hear the difference, it sounds wonderful no doubt....But the added cost and the missing pcs of either a physical record label issued booklet/jewelcase or a vinyl gatefold, its not enough.
Even my yellow lab has told me.."dude, even I can't hear any difference...stop already..." he is a funny dog that way.
For those people I have concluded its mostly in their head due to peer pressure and the need to have something better than your next door neighbor.......Which is certainly their right to have.
I have no issue paying more for something better, but the return has to be worth it.
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 21 2012 at 07:21 |
|||||||||
 )
16 bits is a theoretical dynamic range of 90dB - from a signal made of +1step to a maximum of ±32,768step is 90dBs:
 so if you can hear a baby breathing while stood next to a large truck that is a dynamic range of 90dB. Now some people will argue that the 1step "baby breathing" component of that 90dB dynamic range is a square-wave so cannot be an accurate representation of the original recording, and this is true, but first consider the harmonic content of a square-wave:
 As you can see the harmonics are considerably smaller than the fundamental note, and as we've alredy established that the fundamental is -90dB below the maximum volume recorded on the CD then these harmonics are even further down heading towards the threshold of human hearing and probably even below it. For very quiet sounds we cannot tell the tonal quality of that sound, if it is distorted we cannot tell.
Now, that's the classical explanation and it all makes perfect sense, so why then do we use 20 and 24 bits in a studio and why to digital guru's swear by 24-bits? The reason for the former is also very simple and makes perfect sense. The ADCs and DACs are linear, they have to be to accurately reproduce the signal voltages, but we don't hear voltage, we hear power and power is a square law of voltage so our hearing is logarithmic - dBs are logarithmic for that very reason. So when we digitise a signal at half the maximum voltage we get a reduction in power of only 6dB - we can barely notice the difference - we are using ±16384steps (15 bits) instead of ±32,768steps (16bits) and getting a barely noticable reduction in volume. To get a reduction in percieved volume of a half we need to reduce the voltage by considerably more (loudness is realtive so half as loud as a truck would be something around 45dB) - a 45dB reduction in volume equates to an 180 times reduction in voltage which is 364steps or 8.5-bit resolution. The implications of that are pretty obvious - in the studio if you mix two instruments one of maximum volume and one half as loud the second is being recorded with the equivalent resolution of 8-bits. When you do that at 24-bit resolution the equivalent resolution of the second instrument is 12-bits, an obvious improvement. BUT (and that's a big butt) this does not mean that 24-bits will automatically give better quality in any subjective or objective measures, what 24-bits gives the sound recording engineer is more room to play with, it lifts the quiet passages out of the studio's inherrant noise floor and allows greater headroom for any sudden loud bursts.
Remember - this only applies to recording - on playback if you reduce the volume control on your stereo to half volume you are still hearing 16-bits - the volume reduction is applied after conversion to analogue, in the recording studio it is effectively applied before. The aim of a studio is to keep all the components of the mix at as high a resolution as is possible and 24-bits is (at the moment) a technology limit - the dynamic range afforded by 24-bits puts us into the cosmic background-radiation noise region (joke!) - anything greater than 24-bits is way beyond the threshold of human hearing..
So, why do digital guru's then swear by 24-bits when saving their treasured recordings to their iPlods and PCs? Part of the reason is peer pressure and techno-envy - if it's good enough for the studio boys then it's good enough for them. In double-blind ABX testing most people cannot tell the difference, but some can - not enough to produce any statitistically meaningful conclusion - but enough to create a psychological advantage for using 24-bits. There is also the psychological advantage that 24 is bigger than16 and 96K is bigger than 44.1K and that must be better (must it not?).
Some of it is to do with data-rates and file sizes - lossless file formats are still compressing the data - they are not losing any aural information but they are still reducing the file size when storing and the data-rate when transmitting the data. Raw data comming off a pre-recorded CD at 16/44K is a data-rate of 1.35Mb/s (to put that into prespective that is RF - in the UK our national AM radio station transmitted its programming on a carrier wave of 1.2Mhz), for a 24/96K recording the data-rate is 4.49Mb/s ... the resultant file sizes for 3 minutes of music are 30Mb and 99Mb respectively and these are wholey impractical numbers when it comes to storing them on a PC or iPlod. MP3 conversion reduces that by a factor of 10 but with losses (that some can hear and some cannot). I've covered all this ground before in various posts here so I'll not bore everyone further, but what we get with any form of compression are trade-offs between resolution, sampling frequencies, bit-rates and file sizes. Edited by Dean - September 21 2012 at 09:02 |
||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
fs_tol
Forum Newbie 
Joined: December 20 2004 Location: Chile Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Posted: September 21 2012 at 02:43 |
|||||||||
|
I just read the whole thread and as a sound processing amateur wanted to thank Dean for making such an exhaustive (for a nontechnical forum) case on the shortcomings of analog versus digital sound. If an objective view is to be taken, I'd say a good summary is that digital has the theoretic (thanks to mr. Nyquist) potential to reproduce analog, but not the other way around. Being young enough to not have experienced all the mysticism surrounding vinyls and be biased by extramusical affairs, I prefer this objective victory.
I think it's important to emphasize that the often critiziced sound of digital audio is not due to format but to mastering practices used by modern producers. A little offtopic question to Dean: we know bandwidth is not an issue, but what about resolution? Do you think 16 bits is enough to reproduce music? Edited by fs_tol - September 21 2012 at 02:54 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17847 |
Posted: September 20 2012 at 22:39 |
|||||||||
|
Dean I am fine with your comments........Some things we agree to disagree on, but not the technical specifications, we are on the same page.
And I am not surprised I may have lost you with my comments.......Its what happens on the internet and forums when trying to explain such things. Some things are better done in person.........one day we will break bread and share a few pints and walk away understanding each other. Have a great day....
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
pitfall
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 22 2012 Location: Essex, England Status: Offline Points: 109 |
Posted: September 20 2012 at 17:47 |
|||||||||
|
Yes, I agree that the original topic was about recorded sound, but I think that it is deeply connected to the way that the music was created. They are two ends of the same process.
When I record, I have a deep relationship with the instruments and other equipment that I use. Personally, I don't feel any connection to a plug-in or a virtual simulation. They just sound and feel phoney to me.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 20 2012 at 17:06 |
|||||||||
Then I have misunderstood what you have been saying everytime you've used the word "distortion" in relation to CD players. If you didn't mean distortion then don't use the word because it has a very specific meaning when referring to audio signals. For example, you said: "But the spindle motor, the pulley system used to move the laser, the rails the housing rides on.....are all mechanical and can contribute to noise/distortion/sibilance whatever u wanna call it" ... after I carefully explained that they cannot. You even drew the parallel to vinyl playback systems which do exhibit those mechanically induced distortions because it is intuitive to assume that if one does then the other must. But that isn't the case.
Sorry, that one is due to my poor explanation, I got a little carried away with my words there.
I'll have one more go then call it quits.
1. In the studio the album is recorded onto a master tape - this tape has tape-hiss
2. That recording is then transfered from the master tape to vinyl but because the vinyl cannot reproduce the hiss you don't hear it.
3. The exact same recording is transferred from the master tape to CD but because the CD can reproduce the hiss you do hear it.
4. From that you state that the vinyl has better playback because you cannot hear the hiss.
I disagree, I accept that you prefer the vinyl version, but I do not accept that it is better - the missing "hiss" also indicates that there are other elements of the actual recording that the vinyl also does not reproduce - all those subtle inflections, the final milliseconds of the decay of a notes and the quiet ambient nuances of each instrument. Of course all those may be irrelevant, but when people start using words like "fidelity" and "audiophile" and decry the modern fashion of over-compression I do start to wonder whether they really want all those things that they strive for, because the opposite of over-compression is no compression at all, and with that the tape-hiss and the subtle nuances of the recording can be heard. To me it seems that what people really want is CD that sounds exactly like vinyl, with all it's flaws and limitations, and I think that is a mistake.
The opening track on Secret Green's To Wake the King is the slowest crescendo I have ever heard - it employs the dynamic range of the digital medium to its fullest starting from absolute zero and steadily rising to maximum volume over the space of three and a half minutes - because it was mastered in the digital domain there is no tape hiss, yet it is far from sterile and cold. It's stunning and it's beautiful and you will never reproduce that on vinyl because the beginning of that crescendo would be lost due to the limited dynamic range of the vinyl media.
I have the feeling I have no real idea what you originally meant, I certainly think I totally misread what you were saying. I thought your comment: "The thought of having to look at my CDs and digital files as Dean explains them, gives me all the more reasons to look at digital as a very sterile medium, it has no life other than black and white....There is no grey area.......Music is not black and white, to me......That's not what I hear. Those early Genesis albums, as veiled by todays hi-fi terms are, back then were special and a lot of people heard the music then. Todays technology maybe has made some of that go away, to me that is sad. " was about looking at those early Genesis albums from a modern perspective and finding them lacking, that somehow what we (and I mentioned my age and background to emphasise that I am of that generation who discovered Genesis when those albums were originally released), thought those albums were better than they sound today. That it was the fault of modern technology that we now find those albums to be of poor production. Obviously I see now that is not what you meant, but since that is the case I do fail to see exactly what you did mean.
Other than that I'm kind of disappointed that I've given the impression that I am totally objective - sure if we're talking technology and engineering I can be coldly objective - that's why the word "better" has such a narrow definition for me - if A is better than B it is because objectively and empirically it can be measured to be better - that is not a subjective word for me so if I prefer A to B then that does not mean (nor can it ever mean) that A is better than B - objectively B can be better than A but I will still prefer A to B. Mike Portnoy is objectively a better drummer than Nick Mason, but subjectively I'll take Nick every time.
I never mentioned build quality so I could not have given a conclusion on that.
I said that $100 and $500 CD players use the same internal transport mechanisms. Just like PC manufacturer they buy them in and install them into their own cases and fit their own electronics - the transport in my LG DVD player is made by LiteOn - the one in my Philips DVD/HDD player is exactly the same as the one in my PC - the one in my Cambridge Audio CD deck was made by Sony. And it's not just limited to $500 decks - there is the infamous incident of Lexicon charging £3500 for an audiophile blu-ray player that was in reality an unmodified $500 Oppo player in a Lexicon box.
Sure the external build quality of a $500 player is better than a $100 one because it has to be, if only for cosmetic purposes, and perhaps internally it may be constructed a little better, and for the money I would hope that the analogue section of the electronics is at least their own design and is made to a high standard. As I said before, if your CD player sounds crap then it's the fault of the analogue section.
I have not said that either.
sorry, you've lost me. You are quoting techincal things that you really need to back up with technical information. As JediJoker7169 as already mentioned SACD and how that has failed to catch on, I am at a loss to see where you are going with this.
 Edited by Dean - September 20 2012 at 17:14 |
||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17847 |
Posted: September 20 2012 at 11:41 |
|||||||||
Dean please read my posts in this thread, I have not said that.....from the start I have agreed with you over and over on all the techincal aspects of digital. It does matter when you are saying something I have not indicated, and i don't want anyone on this forum to think I believe the digital medium is not the best for music, from a purely numbers perspective....Again I will state what I have said already....I cannot argue the tech specs of digital, there is no discernable distortion within the digital medium, you can't hear any if it exists in the 0s and 1s.
I have been on the CD bandwagon since 1985, when as a 21yr old I purchased my first player a Sony CDP-302.....The best I could afford at that time I remember it was US$599, at 21 that was a ton of money for me, so I remember. I had enough money left to buy 3-4 CDs.....And I was blown away at what I was hearing.....It was better than sliced bread!
That player was built very well, it finally died on me 2yrs ago......The value that player returned to me for over 20yrs was more than worth it. But as a hi-fi enthusiast, I realized about 5-7yrs ago, it was not sounding as good as what I was hearing at hi-fi stores.
Here I feel you are putting words in my mouth and also telling me what I am hearing. I have had a multitude of cassette decks and also still own an Akai reel-reel deck...I know what tape hiss is. And yes you are right the hiss comes from the master recording tapes.....That is all good and fine and I agree. My comment was that the vinyl version I have of this album, you cannot hear the hiss that is present on the CD version. Its what my ears hear, in those cases technical terms do not come into play, its what I actually hear......What the reason is I am not sure because again, your explanation makes sense from a technical position, but the A/B comparison shows me the vinyl has better playback, and again its why I don't listen to this album on CD.....it is what it is.
Your preaching to the choir on vinyl imperfections and how the stylus picks it all up.......Its why I am meticulous on my cleaning and care of vinyl.
Now you are trying to argue subjective comments, which is fine, these are not techincal comments I made. Again, read what I stated already. I said that those early Genesis albums are horrid on vinyl, period. I also own the remastered versions on CD and vinyl and I prefer the vinyl and that's what I listen to. The original Genesis copies I stated are put away for safe keeping since they are original copies. The only remaster copy I do not own is The Lamb...I actually like the original vinyl version I have as its not as veiled as the first few. A small tweek on my Treble knob and its much better...My other system I have a 10-band EQ, and I can make the sound much better to my ears.
You hit on exactly what I am talking about when you wrote.. "whatever happened to them back then was not special (well it was, but not in a positive way)"
Exactly!!! Not positive from a subjective listening point of view....but very positive in the statement they made and to me that feeling comes out more on vinyl than the remastered CD versions. Its ok Dean.....come to the Dark Side, let your feelings flow!!! LOL
I will clarify, adequate is not good enough for me, maybe for you and that is fine.....I will not argue what you prefer, but I will state my experiences.
I am a very frugal buyer when it comes to equipment. I too am not of the camp that $1000 spkr cable is needed to hear the music, or $500 interconnects are the only way to go and I don't believe in wall treatments or blocks to keep my cables off the floor or that this spkr stand makes the music sound better.....Certainly there are people who swear on it, but that is 100% subjective opinion that it "sounds better so it must be right...here is all my money, I am in!" NO...I am not of that camp. The musical return for me on a set of $500 cables is nowhere near worth it.......I have taken many, many sets for trial and returned everyone of them. The most I have spent was about US$12.25 per meter for 10AWG Belden cable with locking banana terminations...These cables were head and shoulders above the mid level 16AWG Monster Cable I was using. The musical return on my investment is easily double the price.
Now I have owned many CDPs, I cannot agree with your conclusion on the build quality of a $100 player compared to a $500 player, and I leave the door open a bit as we are not mentioning any brand names. I think there would be 1000s of R&D, engineers who might have a problem with that, and of course let alone the marketing folks. For example, I have had several $100 DVD players and have connected them to my system and played CDs....completely sound like A$$, the transports make noise, they clank you can hear the disc spinning loudly...I don't have equipment to test the sound, but my ears know the difference and its not good.
Now I agree there is a price point that to me, does not make sense to go over as I agree the upgrade value does not come into play. I have heard many CDP in the $1k to $2k range and I cannot hear an appreciable difference as compared to my NAD player. The dealer I use has Rega, NAD, Rotel, Naim, Marantz......and I have sat and listened to my own CDs and the upper priced, feature loaded players.....nahhh your not getting me to pay $1k+. My auditioning experience has shown me that the price of diminishing returns starts at about $400-$500, after that you are paying for extra features and not sound improvement.....and that is all subjective because if you want to buy it, go ahead its your money.
So I believe the one misconception that both you and I would agree on is......its not the CD that sounds bad, but the equipment that its playing on...then from there people might state, "CDs are not the best...",
I do agree the better engineered CDP are out on the market and have been, not much else they can do although I do believe there are better DACs on the horizon for the audio industry.....The CDP mfgs will need to somehow incorporate higher end DACs that can help fight the download wars and somehow design the plastic CD to allow storage of these hi-rez files and move up from Redbook 16/44.1 (another topic, not going there now)....but maybe not, and there in lies another conversation about is the "CD Dead?". Many listeners here download a lot.......they may not care about CDs anymore.
Basically you technically confirmed what my mind kinda assumed from 25yrs ago......that digital is the best medium. But yes, I do look at the CD and Digital and now more than ever dislike it from its sterile, lifless mathematical perspective. Yes the music sounds excellent......and at the end of the day its all about the ears and the experience...Music is art, subjective art, and to me analog is better for my ears and heart for experiencing music and that is my choice and I will defend it everyday. Nothing is gonna make me stop listening to my CDs or digital files, because on my system they sound amazing! My vinyl also sounds amazing........
But..... a perfect digital photograph copy of the Mona Lisa......is not the Mona Lisa.
Have a great day.....enjoy the music.
Edited by Catcher10 - September 20 2012 at 11:42 |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
presdoug
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 24 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 8618 |
Posted: September 19 2012 at 20:32 |
|||||||||
It is not the fact that today's classical performances are recorded digitally that is the bad thing. It is the interpretive quality that is lacking. Today's orchestras sound so much alike and are so bland because of the lacklustre conducting techniques If Toscanini or Bruno Walter or Leopold Stokowski were alive today and could use today's digital technology, we would have great conducting showing itself in up to date digital recordings, and i bet it would sound! The fact that there are no pianists like Artur Schnabel or Claudio Arrau anymore is not the fault of today's digital technology. Edited by presdoug - September 19 2012 at 20:34 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 3334353637 38> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
the importance of analog sound in prog
Topic Options
JediJoker7169 wrote: