Analog Or Digital

digital. in fact, 99% of time I listen to mp3 (Hi-Q, though).

why? because IT'S SIMPLE.

I thought this was about watches, until I read some posts

DeepPhreeze wrote: Empathy wrote: DeepPhreeze wrote: For me, since I have almost super-human hearing, I can pick out little tiny details in music most people cannot. Is there ANYthing you don't know or can't do?!?! *sheesh* P.S. - My merely human ears find that digital recordings are more _accurate_, which sometimes isn't as pleasing to the human ear. It was an exaggeration; I have VERY good hearing, but not so good that I can hear EVERYTHING around me. But I can definitely hear the difference between digital and analog. Take 'Wish You Were Here' for instance. On vinyl, the drums are represented fairly. The sound is in no way 'sharp' or 'brash'. On CD or MP3, I have to turn it off because it sounds so... pixellated. Yes. It sounds digitized and it's the equivalent of having a pixellated JPEG. Digital music can only be so accurate in how it represents certain tones, sounds, volume levels... Listen to a live record on LP, and listen to the same recording on CD. I guarantee you will be spoiled after hearing the LP.

I've been listening to vinyl at the beginning of the 1990s - on a decent system (dual turntable + musical fidelity amp + magnat speakers), and I did not hear a striking difference between vinyl and CD.

Come on! Do you honestly believe that CD would have replaced vinyl that quickly and persistently if it really sounds "pixellated"? I have good hearing, I'm a trained musician and I even created some recordings in a home studio back then - we had a small studio (small like: equipment for 10,000 EUR) in our basement, with professional monitors and all.

No sir, there is no striking difference between analog and CD ... unless you're a dog or a cat with hypersonic hearing.

Xenoxen wrote: I choose analog - It's warm and very detailed and accurate. Digital - is cold and looses a lot of fine detail.

A good definiton indeed.
You can say the same about Solid state versus Tubes (at least in the highs).

MikeEnRegalia wrote: DeepPhreeze wrote: Empathy wrote: DeepPhreeze wrote: For me, since I have almost super-human hearing, I can pick out little tiny details in music most people cannot. Is there ANYthing you don't know or can't do?!?! *sheesh*P.S. - My merely human ears find that digital recordings are more _accurate_, which sometimes isn't as pleasing to the human ear. It was an exaggeration; I have VERY good hearing, but not so good that I can hear EVERYTHING around me.But I can definitely hear the difference between digital and analog.Take 'Wish You Were Here' for instance. On vinyl, the drums are represented fairly. The sound is in no way 'sharp' or 'brash'. On CD or MP3, I have to turn it off because it sounds so... <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">pixellated</SPAN>. Yes. It sounds digitized and it's the equivalent of having a pixellated JPEG.Digital music can only be so accurate in how it represents certain tones, sounds, volume levels... Listen to a live record on LP, and listen to the same recording on CD. I guarantee you will be spoiled after hearing the LP. I've been listening to vinyl at the beginning of the 1990s - on a decent system (dual turntable + musical fidelity amp + magnat speakers), and I did not hear a striking difference between vinyl and CD. Come on! Do you honestly believe that CD would have replaced vinyl that quickly and persistently if it really sounds "pixellated"? I have good hearing, I'm a trained musician and I even created some recordings in a home studio back then - we had a small studio (small like: equipment for 10,000 EUR) in our basement, with professional monitors and all. No sir, there is no striking difference between analog and CD ... unless you're a dog or a cat with hypersonic hearing.

Cause you've never heard a good system.

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I've been listening to vinyl at the beginning of the 1990s - on a decent system (dual turntable + musical fidelity amp + magnat speakers), and I did not hear a striking difference between vinyl and CD. Cause you've never heard a good system.

You're such an incredible audio snob oliver ...  too bad that you already admitted in earlier posts that Musical Fidelity amps are at least decent.

You may continue on your quest for the perfect sound with my blessing. Too bad that there will always be a better system than yours, so you'll never ever be able to enjoy music.

I can enjoy music to the fullest with my 70 EUR Logitech speakers, and I wouldn't trade that ability for ANY audiophile system. And NO, that does not imply that I admit that such a system would sound much better. OF course it would be cool to have some chromium plated shiny sparkling tube gizmo with gold plated connectors, silver cables and it's own atom-bomb proof power generator. I'm sure my friends would all go "wow" and come to my place and listen to it at wall-shaking volume, and together with some incense (stencher) and esoteric room interior they would finally agree that it sounds superior to their own system.

All that doesn't matter ... the music is what really matters, and you can enjoy it on ANY system. And yes, you can even enjoy listening to internet radio on 24kbps mono.

Music is the best!

 

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

Viajero Astral wrote: What about the DVD-Audio and the  SACD ?

"Cold and lifeless"

    No, the difference is not in the device's appearence and this is not snobism, but a quest for the absolute sound. And yes, it's infinite, cause there'll always be a better system indeed.

But, once you have try good tubes amps, excellent sources (both analog and big digital), preamps, power     amps, good speakers of course; experienced the enhancement due to excellent cables, power optimization and vib'cancelling, it's like a (hard) drug, cause each time you upgrade, you re-discover your fav records, hearing things you never heard on pieces you listened to hundreds of times...   here's the magic of high end audio...





Very musical french speakers (JM Reynaud Concorde)




   
    
    
PS: And yes, Musical fidelity integrated amps are not bad, this is a good brand moreover. Magnat speakers are not as good as their sub ( i have one BTW) but that's not too bad. But simply put these two elements together is not enough to have a good or even decent system. Ther's much more to do!

Edited by oliverstoned - April 21 2006 at 02:42

"Why do you always have to post the pictures of these "devices? I'm sure that they look great and impressive ... but the impact on the sound is surely not worth the cost."

Consolate yourself as you can.

"My biggest points are:

    * The records weren't made for systems like that. They were made for any system - big or small. IF there really was such a huge difference between top-end systems and bottom-end systems, I'm sure that you could buy such systems in regular stores. But they don't even offer these brands ... that clearly shows that there is no market. And that they're scared of offering these systems in an open way, like setting one up in the store and allowing you to listen to it before you buy."

Indeed, big systems reveals that most CD are bad -especially in rock- and these days most CD rock releases are bumped in order to give a false low and dynamic for Mr Everybody bad system. Fortunatly, there are a few good ones, even in rock.

    "* Most new releases are on CD only ... why would the musicians do that, if it really sounds like crap?"

Really a poor argument. They don't have the choice!
And most don't know, moreover.

But i think you don't need high end hifi to listen to trash metal, like you.

You really need a big sl***!!

Keep on ruining the site with your bad bands which ar enot prog at all!