War of the Audio’s

You can do blind tests, but the difference is obvious:
numeric breaks your ears whereas analog not; and transistor makes rape with cheese in the highs whereas good tube sings (but there are transistor better than others, of course)

oliverstoned wrote: "DVD-A (192Khz 24-bit) is the most accurate form of music recording there is - more accurate than even analogue. It seriously kicks the ass of 44.1Khz 16 Bit CD audio." Maybe on the paper But it doesn't work at all If you compare the distorsion rate of a tube amp and the distorsion rate of a transistor one, the transistor wins. But when you listen, the tube amp wins easily. It's the same with DVD-a

Er... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there, Ollie - "...it doesn't work at all"?

It does work - I've heard DVD-a, and the dynamic range is astounding. It's horribly clinical, and devoid of much of the musical feeling you get from analogue - but the range and accuracy is much better.

If it goes through a properly constructed digital amp, then there's no distortion except that caused by resistance in the circuitry - as far as I know. The digital amp will feed through exactly what the DVD-a player feeds it (0's and 1's) - the accuracy is unsurpassable by analogue.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the musicality point though - for the old-fashioned neck-hair raising qualities of the music, you NEED an analogue setup. Somehow digital drains most of that right out.

I wonder if feeding a DVD-a player through a tube amp would help re-introduce some warmth...?

"DVD-A (192Khz 24-bit) is the most accurate form of music recording there is - more accurate than even analogue. It seriously kicks the ass of 44.1Khz 16 Bit CD audio."


Maybe on the paper
But it doesn't work at all
If you compare the distorsion rate of a tube amp and the distorsion rate of a transistor one, the transistor wins.

But when you listen, the tube amp wins easily.

It's the same with DVD-a

oliverstoned wrote: the DVD will offers a greatest video quality,cause it contains much more informations. But for sound...forget!

DVD-A isn't the same as the audio track on a DVD though - regular DVDs are lower than CD quality in loud sections, although probably about the same for speech/quiet bits, which is a shame for live concerts on DVD

DVD-A, though, definitely has the capability of better-than-CD quality; I'm pretty sure in a couple of years time mastering/processing will catch up with that capability, too.

Maybe, it will be better when the technology will be improved, but for the moment, it doesn't work.

So don't bother with DVD-A, you'll have a better sound with on of those good english "little" CD player above,
i swear!
Don't me fooled my the marketing and advertisement!
They are lying on these new supports, telling it's better, like they were lying about the CD being better then the vynil.
On the other hand, the Blue ray disc, which will replaces
the DVD will offers a greatest video quality,cause it contains much more informations.
But for sound...forget!

you say they are more efficient....are these digital formats other than mp3 close to the quality of analog stuff ? what about .wav files that are not compressed half as much as mp3?

Edited by hopelevre

Not the very last bit, and I'm not saying don't use mp3, by any means. The point is that since whenever you encode mp3 you lose information, that means that it will never be able to replicate the original perfectly. It might come very very close and be indistinguishable on nearly every sample, but there will always be at least one piece of music that sounds audibly different (likewise if you use lossless compression, there will always be a file which gets larger instead of smaller), and some people (I'm sure oliverstoned is one of them) with high end equipment can differentiate even top bitrate encodings of "normal" songs.

The reason I doubt mp3 is the format of the future is that there are at least two formats which are far more efficient. While ogg's been around longer, I suspect if any of today's codecs catch on it'll be AAC, simply because Apple have such a share in the market.

But hey, people can use whatever they like - if at some point I have any money I'll look into DVD-A (looks like I'll have to buy all my favourite albums again... ), and for that reason I'm not buying any King Crimson CDs since I think they're being reissued in not too long, although Red is really really tempting me..!

It might not sound different but it is!

Snow Dog wrote: oliverstoned wrote: We have to explain you all from the beggining... Too hard... Too Hard...like your head..its full of concrete or something far more revolting. Theres no point in continuing this until I find the article I read, Meanwhile go and listen to your compressed music.

Compressed music?!!!!!!!!!!!
What's Mp3 in your opinion?