Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - the importance of analog sound in prog
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closedthe importance of analog sound in prog
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2122232425 38>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 24 2012 at 02:20
Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

It isn't a D vs A debate, merely the poor implimentation of the former. Personally, I get sick of people making misleading claims for C.D., especially when it is based on a belief system rather than actual experience. A good example is the claim that C.D. has nearly twice the dynamic range of an LP, when the retail product has, in most cases, considerably less. The same is true of the seperation argument.

A crap recording is a crap recording whatever medium is used. That retail product would sound awful on vinyl as it does on CD just as a crap analogue recording copied from vinyl to CD sounds as crap now on CD as it did forty years ago on vinyl. Your argument (such that it isn't) is meaningless. Personally I don't get sick of the misleading boasts for vinyl, but I do grow tired of them.

Try adressing what I wrote,it is easily varifiable, crap recordings are another issue. Any damage done in the studio can't be repaired by any playback system.
Try reading what I wrote in the context of what you wrote. I knew exactly what you meant and that;'s exactly what I was refering too in my reply. Your argument with respect to one format over another is still meainingless.
 
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2012 at 05:08
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Dean needs to upgrade his vinyl gear so he can speak intelligently about the analog vs digital debate.  He clearly is basing his subjective bias toward digital upon mediocre analog listening experience.
I clearly am not since I clearly haven't made any statements regarding a subjective bias towards digital. I have never said which I prefer, nor will I, I have never said which sounds better to me, nor will I. I have no desire to share my subjective opinions with anyone, least of all because that invariably results in my system is better than your system bollocks such as you are prone to display. I have no time nor inclination for pissing contests.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


A restored vintage tube amp working at correct voltages, a pair of high efficiency horn driven speakers and a cartridge at least as sensitive as a Goldring 1012 would be a minimum entry level to then get you out of the analog fog he is speaking of.  The sky is the limit from there.
Given the level of electronics knowledge you have displayed thus far I have no feeling for how well you can set the correct working voltages in any valve amplifier. I have the schematics for the HH Scott 340B stereo receiver (dated 17th July 1963) in front of me as I type this and making adjustments of the DC Bias currents on that is not something I would entrust to an amateur. I recall we discussed replacing selenium rectifiers in such equipment and I note that all of the many diodes in the HH Scott 340B are silicon, including the eight HT rectifier diodes (which are annotated as 1N560), you of course can replace those as often as you like but they are not selenium, but it seems unnecessary to me unless they are degrading (in which case there has to be some external reason for this degradation - such as running them too hot, which can occur in old equipment due to standardisation that occured in mains supply voltage distribution between the 1960s and now).
 
I also recall we discussed horn speakers (the use of the word "driven" here is inaccurate - the horn is driven by a transducer, the horn itself is passive), once we'd clarified that you were referring to a horn tweeter and not mid-range or bass horn units I then stated that I have been using horn tweeters in my speakers for over 30 years - you then made a rash comment that you need horns to listen to music (such as In The Court Of The Crimson King) that contained brass instruments - which would be fine if the geometries, materials and construction of the speaker and instrument were the same, but as it stands you comment would only hold true for a kid's toy trumpet purchased from Toys'R'Us - of course your horn tweeter in your speakers may be the size of a B♭ trumpet and made from solid brass (I don't know, you tell me).
 
The sensitivities of various moving magnet and moving coil stereo cartridges vary considerably and is not a measure of quality so the nummeric values should not be given too much regard when selecting a cartridge that suits you. The phrase "at least as sensitive" is an objective comparison that gives no indication of subjective sonic preference, if we chose by sensitivity alone we'd all be using ceramic pickups and that's just daft.
 
I have never spoken of any analogue fog - I merely state that regardless of how good your cartridge, amplifier and speakers are, they cannot improve on what what has been recorded onto the vinyl surface - your system cannot improve the dynalic range, the signal to noise, the linearity or the channel seperation that is the intrinsic characteristic of that recording medium. But if it sounds good to you then I'm fine with that.
 
 
What?
Back to Top
progbethyname View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7865 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2012 at 19:59
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Dean needs to upgrade his vinyl gear so he can speak intelligently about the analog vs digital debate.  He clearly is basing his subjective bias toward digital upon mediocre analog listening experience.

I clearly am not since I clearly haven't made any statements regarding a subjective bias towards digital. I have never said which I prefer, nor will I, I have never said which sounds better to me, nor will I. I have no desire to share my subjective opinions with anyone, least of all because that invariably results in my system is better than your system bollocks such as you are prone to display. I have no time nor inclination for pissing contests.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

A restored vintage tube amp working at correct voltages, a pair of high efficiency horn driven speakers and a cartridge at least as sensitive as a Goldring 1012 would be a minimum entry level to then get you out of the analog fog he is speaking of.  The sky is the limit from there.

Given the level of electronics knowledge you have displayed thus far I have no feeling for how well you can set the correct working voltages in any valve amplifier. I have the schematics for the HH Scott 340B stereo receiver (dated 17th July 1963) in front of me as I type this and making adjustments of the DC Bias currents on that is not something I would entrust to an amateur. I recall we discussed replacing selenium rectifiers in such equipment and I note that all of the many diodes in the HH Scott 340B are silicon, including the eight HT rectifier diodes (which are annotated as 1N560), you of course can replace those as often as you like but they are not selenium, but it seems unnecessary to me unless they are degrading (in which case there has to be some external reason for this degradation - such as running them too hot, which can occur in old equipment due to standardisation that occured in mains supply voltage distribution between the 1960s and now).

 

I also recall we discussed horn speakers (the use of the word "driven" here is inaccurate - the horn is driven by a transducer, the horn itself is passive), once we'd clarified that you were referring to a horn tweeter and not mid-range or bass horn units I then stated that I have been using horn tweeters in my speakers for over 30 years - you then made a rash comment that you need horns to listen to music (such as In The Court Of The Crimson King) that contained brass instruments - which would be fine if the geometries, materials and construction of the speaker and instrument were the same, but as it stands you comment would only hold true for a kid's toy trumpet purchased from Toys'R'Us - of course your horn tweeter in your speakers may be the size of a B<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode" =music-symbol>♭</SPAN> trumpet and made from solid brass (I don't know, you tell me).

 

The sensitivities of various moving magnet and moving coil stereo cartridges vary considerably and is not a measure of quality so the nummeric values should not be given too much regard when selecting a cartridge that suits you. The phrase "at least as sensitive" is an objective comparison that gives no indication of subjective sonic preference, if we chose by sensitivity alone we'd all be using ceramic pickups and that's just daft.

 

I have never spoken of any analogue fog - I merely state that regardless of how good your cartridge, amplifier and speakers are, they cannot improve on what what has been recorded onto the vinyl surface - your system cannot improve the dynalic range, the signal to noise, the linearity or the channel seperation that is the intrinsic characteristic of that recording medium. But if it sounds good to you then I'm fine with that.

 

 


The pen is mightier than the sword.   
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
Back to Top
Surrealist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 25 2012 at 23:37
regardless of how good your cartridge, amplifier and speakers are, they cannot improve on what what has been recorded onto the vinyl surface

Sure, this is true... but you can have a system where you can hear what the grooves in the vinyl have to offer so your system can sound great.. or you can have a poor system that would falsely lead one to believe that digital replication is superior .... which of course it is not.

The analog bashers don't have good vinyl set ups or they would change from bashing to praising.

Dean, making the statement you are not biased in your opinion on the analog vs digital preference is like me saying I won't admit that I have ever listened to progressive rock.  Remember, Robert Fripp will not admit he is a progressive rock artist.

Good science should actually support the subjective differences in experience.  Looking forward to the day science catches up to what we already know to be true.
Back to Top
Aquiring the Taste View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: October 23 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 68 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 01:10
That's the problem with belief systems, they employ a lot of denial to be self-sustaining.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
    Oscar Wilde, De Profundis, 1905
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 03:06
In view of Dean's reasoned reply below I have deleted my outburst here. The guy just annoys me so much.

Edited by Snow Dog - November 26 2012 at 06:21
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 05:46
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

regardless of how good your cartridge, amplifier and speakers are, they cannot improve on what what has been recorded onto the vinyl surface

Sure, this is true... but you can have a system where you can hear what the grooves in the vinyl have to offer so your system can sound great..
Of course you can. You may not have much of an opinion of one of my set ups that I described earlier because you like playing my system is better than your system pissing contests but I happen to think it sounds pretty good, as I do of all of the systems I have around the house. This has never been a point of contention. That is the nature of subjectivity - if I think it sounds great then that is fine by me, if you disagree then that is also fine by me, eventhough you can make such statements without ever having heard it (even though by some remarkable co-incidence you just happened to have had exactly the same set up ... Like, wow! What are the chances of that?!), that's still fine by me.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

or you can have a poor system that would falsely lead one to believe that digital replication is superior .... which of course it is not.
Subjectively. You believe. In your opinion. But not actually provable in any objective or quantifiable sense.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

The analog bashers don't have good vinyl set ups or they would change from bashing to praising.
Show me an analogue basher here, no one has said any of the things you believe they have - you are making assumptions. You are ticked off because we are not all fawning over analogue with the same fanatical determination you are. But that is understandable because you have a vested interest in analogue production and reproduction. I'm sorry I cannot confirm your prejudices in plain engineering terms, but that a simple fact of life, the science does not, nor can it ever, support your preferences. It can (and I have done so many times) explain the differences and from that you can conclude which of those differences makes what you prefer sound great (or even subjectively superior) to you. Unfortunately that does not produce a universal truth that objectively what you prefer has a better performance. I'm sorry about that, I cannot alter or change physics to suit your wishes.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


Dean, making the statement you are not biased in your opinion on the analog vs digital preference is like me saying I won't admit that I have ever listened to progressive rock.  Remember, Robert Fripp will not admit he is a progressive rock artist.
Making that statement is like wearing a crinoline dress on the moon.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


Good science should actually support the subjective differences in experience.  Looking forward to the day science catches up to what we already know to be true.
Why wait. I have already explained the objective differences and shown how those can be subjectively better in your experience for your preferred format. What you don't want to accept is that what science has shown to be one thing you have perceived to be the other. For example you believe analogue has more detail, when objectively it cannot, but if that's what you perceive when you listen to it then that's fine by me. If, by way of another example, you believe that analogue produces better sound staging than digital even though the channel separation is significantly worse then subjectively that's what you believe and that's what you prefer and I don't have a problem with that.
 
Seriously, if subjectively you prefer analogue then that's fine by me. Just don't make technical claims that are untrue that's all. I don't understand why you need science to validate your preferences.
 
As Mr The Taste rather snarkily remarked:
Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

That's the problem with belief systems, they employ a lot of denial to be self-sustaining.
If the quantitative empirical evidence proves something to be false then we cannot chose to simply ignore that evidence just because it doesn't back-up our pet theory, it means the pet theory is simply proved false. That's how science differs from a belief system.
 
This is why I tend to avoid beliefs and subjectivity when making technical statements. Of course it is very difficult in conversational English to not use the word "believe" when making any statement  - I believe things fall to Earth because of gravity is not a belief system, the word believe there is merely a figure of speech - so I cannot categorically say that I have never used the word in any post in this thread, but I'm fairly certain that I've not used it in the context of a belief system.


Edited by Dean - November 26 2012 at 08:22
What?
Back to Top
Neelus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 346 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 07:58
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:





Making that statement is like wearing a crinoline dress on the moon.




Back to Top
Aquiring the Taste View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: October 23 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 68 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 08:53
I clearly am not since I clearly haven't made any statements regarding a subjective bias towards digital. I have never said which I prefer, nor will I, I have never said which sounds better to me, nor will I. I have no desire to share my subjective opinions with anyone, least of all because that invariably results in my system is better than your system bollocks such as you are prone to display. I have no time nor inclination for pissing contests.
No Dean, it is the only possible explanation, the symtoms are, massive insecurity,attacking those with greater knowledge,and making knowingly mileading statements to support your blief,AND AVOIDING DIRECT QUESTIONS that would expose your limmitations.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
    Oscar Wilde, De Profundis, 1905
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 08:55
Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

I clearly am not since I clearly haven't made any statements regarding a subjective bias towards digital. I have never said which I prefer, nor will I, I have never said which sounds better to me, nor will I. I have no desire to share my subjective opinions with anyone, least of all because that invariably results in my system is better than your system bollocks such as you are prone to display. I have no time nor inclination for pissing contests.
No Dean, it is the only possible explanation, the symtoms are, massive insecurity,attacking those with greater knowledge,and making knowingly mileading statements to support your blief,AND AVOIDING DIRECT QUESTIONS that would expose your limmitations.
Oh, grow up for Pete's sake. Disapprove
What?
Back to Top
Surrealist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 11:40
I believe things fall to Earth because of gravity is not a belief system

Actually, this is a perfect example of being blinded by science.  Science once said this to be true, in the Newtonian era.
But now science understands that gravity is actually not what it seems.  Things DO NOT fall to the earth... what they are actually doing is just holding their position in curved space. 

So while you think that a digital sampling of an analog sound wave is superior to the original form, it simply cannot be, and no amount of pseudoscience could ever get a rational person to believe this.  Keep drinking the tonic mate.  The world is trying so hard to convince us all to take the digital pill for art and music and culture, but it will not ever work.

Digital has it's place, but not in music or art.  As soon as you sample, pixel etc.. that degradation can never be recovered no matter how you try... what you say, or make attempts to scientifically falsely claim otherwise.

I am not angry at anything here.. just keeping you honest and letting other readers hear know that what you say is not only incorrect, it is promoting an inferior experience than what could be had. 

For those that really love music, do a bit of research, get into a decent analog rig and you won't regret. 


Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 11:44
^No..it's 0k.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:15
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

I believe things fall to Earth because of gravity is not a belief system

Actually, this is a perfect example of being blinded by science.  Science once said this to be true, in the Newtonian era.
But now science understands that gravity is actually not what it seems.  Things DO NOT fall to the earth... what they are actually doing is just holding their position in curved space. 
Hmm, you've tried this one before and it didn't quite work then either. Newtonian gravity is still valid in cases of low mass and low velocity (resulting in low-gravity, such as that exerted by the Earth on any object in its proximity) so it is still used for computations involving gravity such as balistics and aerodynamics and a multitude of other things. Newton's law of gravitaion is now considered to be the low-gravity limit of general relativity (not "special relativity" as you used in your previous attempt). We only need to venture beyond that when we consider masses and velocities on a cosmological scale. Objects do not hold their position in curved space, that's the whole point of curved spaced - the description of movement of objects relative to each other, in that it causes objects to move towards each other determined by the degree which the mass of the objects curve timespace. If you are standing on the larger mass then the smaller one will appear (relatively) to fall towards you and that is a convienient and factual way of describing the action between them. For Earth-bound objects my statement is true and valid, yours is not. Of course you could try repeating the mantra 'objects hold their position in curved space' next time you trip over, just as the ground rushes up and hits you in the face.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


So while you think that a digital sampling of an analog sound wave is superior to the original form, it simply cannot be, and no amount of pseudoscience could ever get a rational person to believe this. 
One more time: I do not think that digital sampling of an analogue sound is superior to the original form, I also do not think that an analogue recording of an analogue sound is superior to the original form either. I have stated this so often now I should have programmed it into one of my laptop's function keys. You have grasped one of these statements but appear to ignore the other.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Keep drinking the tonic mate. 
I ain't your mate.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

The world is trying so hard to convince us all to take the digital pill for art and music and culture, but it will not ever work.
The world isn't trying to convince anyone of anything.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Digital has it's place, but not in music or art.  As soon as you sample, pixel etc.. that degradation can never be recovered no matter how you try... what you say, or make attempts to scientifically falsely claim otherwise.
Both recording methods degrade, that is a scientific fact and neither system is capable of recovering that, this is also a scientific fact. The questions that arise as a result of those two salient scientific facts are concerned with what these degradations are, how much effect they have and what can be done to reduce them and/or minimise their effects.
 
You can stick your fingers in your ears,  or head in the sand, or whatever it is you need to do and accept that those degradations of your preferred system are what they are because perfection (by your own subjective assessment) has been achieved and I am perfectly fine with that. People (i.e., not me) who make the same categorical claims about digital that you make about analogue have also accepted the degradations caused by their prefer method. The difference is those people haven't come to this thread and made unsubstantiated claims - if they did I would try and explain what they presented as "truth" were perhaps not truth at all and I would continue to do that from a technical/engineering/scientific perspective since that is the scientific method - present a hypothesis and then test it for all known data - if it fails then bin it. Because that's what I do - I do not defend good science, but I cannot let a statement containing bad science or pseudoscience (and the two are very different btw), or one that is based upon misapplication (or poor understanding) of good science go uncommented.
 
You have hit a mental block on quantisation and no matter how much I try and explain that process, you will continue to see it as something missing, even when in reality it is something added that can later be removed. The fault there lies with the engineers who first drew a stepped quantised waveform to explain the process - it never looks like that - put an oscilloscope on the analogue output of a CD player and you will not see a stepped waveform. But the damage has been done, that picture is burnt into your memory ... a step transition from one small voltage level to another every 5.208µS with all the wiggly bits between them flattened out like a plateau from a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lost world, (except of course there are no wiggly bits between them in analogue domain either so what is perceived as missing was never there), however, it is indelibly etched into your understanding of how stuff works so that you can even believe you hear it with your fingers rammed firmly in your ears.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

I am not angry at anything here.. just keeping you honest and letting other readers hear know that what you say is not only incorrect, it is promoting an inferior experience than what could be had. 
I have never presumed that you were ever angry at anything, I see no reason why you ever should be. When you are ready to tell to those sitting in the cheap seats precisely what it is I am saying that is incorrect, and moreover, explain to them exactly why it is incorrect, and give them an irrefutable, repeatable and rational explanation that does not rely on some subjective assessment or unquantifiable indescribable perception by way of a counter-argument then I will happily sit back, listen and take copious notes. I still will not say which I prefer though.
 
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


For those that really love music, do a bit of research, get into a decent analog rig and you won't regret. 
 
For those who really love music, just listen to the music and ignore both of us. If you like what you hear and it makes you happy then any idea of regret is not something to dwell upon.


Edited by Dean - November 26 2012 at 16:24
What?
Back to Top
Aquiring the Taste View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: October 23 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 68 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:37
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

I clearly am not since I clearly haven't made any statements regarding a subjective bias towards digital. I have never said which I prefer, nor will I, I have never said which sounds better to me, nor will I. I have no desire to share my subjective opinions with anyone, least of all because that invariably results in my system is better than your system bollocks such as you are prone to display. I have no time nor inclination for pissing contests.
No Dean, it is the only possible explanation, the symtoms are, massive insecurity,attacking those with greater knowledge,and making knowingly mileading statements to support your blief,AND AVOIDING DIRECT QUESTIONS that would expose your limmitations.

Oh, grow up for Pete's sake. Disapprove

It is you who need to grow up young man,but thank you for proving my point.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
    Oscar Wilde, De Profundis, 1905
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:45
Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

I clearly am not since I clearly haven't made any statements regarding a subjective bias towards digital. I have never said which I prefer, nor will I, I have never said which sounds better to me, nor will I. I have no desire to share my subjective opinions with anyone, least of all because that invariably results in my system is better than your system bollocks such as you are prone to display. I have no time nor inclination for pissing contests.
No Dean, it is the only possible explanation, the symtoms are, massive insecurity,attacking those with greater knowledge,and making knowingly mileading statements to support your blief,AND AVOIDING DIRECT QUESTIONS that would expose your limmitations.

Oh, grow up for Pete's sake. Disapprove

It is you who need to grow up young man,but thank you for proving my point.
yeah, you're right - I need not attack the man, only his argument - my riposte was uncalled for and I appologise.
 
 
I dislike both analogue LPs and digital CDs equally, live music played by live musicians is far superior in every way. This is easily demonstratable to me on a subjective level because I have live recordings from concerts I attended personally and there was so much of the experience that they did not capture they pale by comparison. For this reason I can not make claim that one recording medium is perfection because it is not. I know that still does not answer this implied direct question that I am avoiding but that's as good as it gets.
 
 
peace out.
What?
Back to Top
progbethyname View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7865 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 26 2012 at 19:01
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

I believe things fall to Earth because of gravity is not a belief systemActually, this is a perfect example of being blinded by science.  Science once said this to be true, in the Newtonian era.But now science understands that gravity is actually not what it seems.  Things DO NOT fall to the earth... what they are actually doing is just holding their position in curved space. 

Hmm, you've tried this one before and it didn't quite work then either. Newtonian gravity is still valid in cases of low mass and low velocity (resulting in low-gravity, such as that exerted by the Earth on any object in its proximity) so it is still used for computations involving gravity such as balistics and aerodynamics and a multitude of other things. Newton's law of gravitaion is now considered to be the low-gravity limit of general relativity (not "special relativity" as you used in your previous attempt). We only need to venture beyond that when we consider masses and velocities on a cosmological scale. Objects do not hold their position in curved space, that's the whole point of curved spaced - the description of movement of objects relative to each other, in that it causes objects to move towards each other determined by the degree which the mass of the objects curve timespace. If you are standing on the larger mass then the smaller one will appear (relatively) to fall towards you and that is a convienient and factual way of describing the action between them. For Earth-bound objects my statement is true and valid, yours is not. Of course you could try repeating the mantra 'objects hold their position in curved space' next time you trip over, just as the ground rushes up and hits you in the face.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

So while you think that a digital sampling of an analog sound wave is superior to the original form, it simply cannot be, and no amount of pseudoscience could ever get a rational person to believe this. 

One more time: I do not think that digital sampling of an analogue sound is superior to the original form, I also do not think that an analogue recording of an analogue sound is superior to the original form either. I have stated this so often now I should have programmed it into one of my laptop's function keys. You have grasped one of these statements but appear to ignore the other.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Keep drinking the tonic mate. 

I ain't your mate.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

The world is trying so hard to convince us all to take the digital pill for art and music and culture, but it will not ever work.

The world isn't trying to convince anyone of anything.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


Digital has it's place, but not in music or art.  As soon as you sample, pixel etc.. that degradation can never be recovered no matter how you try... what you say, or make attempts to scientifically falsely claim otherwise.

Both recording methods degrade, that is a scientific fact and neither system is capable of recovering that, this is also a scientific fact. The questions that arise as a result of those two salient scientific facts are concerned with what these degradations are, how much effect they have and what can be done to reduce them and/or minimise their effects.

 

You can stick your fingers in your ears,  or head in the sand, or whatever it is you need to do and accept that those degradations of your preferred system are what they are because perfection (by your own subjective assessment) has been achieved and I am perfectly fine with that. People (i.e., not me) who make the same categorical claims about digital that you make about analogue have also accepted the degradations caused by their prefer method. The difference is those people haven't come to this thread and made unsubstantiated claims - if they did I would try and explain what they presented as "truth" were perhaps not truth at all and I would continue to do that from a technical/engineering/scientific perspective since that is the scientific method - present a hypothesis and then test it for all known data - if it fails then bin it. Because that's what I do - I do not defend good science, but I cannot let a statement containing bad science or pseudoscience (and the two are very different btw), or one that is based upon misapplication (or poor understanding) of good science go uncommented.

 

You have hit a mental block on quantisation and no matter how much I try and explain that process, you will continue to see it as something missing, even when in reality it is something added that can later be removed. The fault there lies with the engineers who first drew a stepped quantised waveform to explain the process - it never looks like that - put an oscilloscope on the analogue output of a CD player and you will not see a stepped waveform. But the damage has been done, that picture is burnt into your memory ... a step transition from one small voltage level to another every 5.208µS with all the wiggly bits between them flattened out like a plateau from a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lost world, (except of course there are no wiggly bits between them in analogue domain either so what is perceived as missing was never there), however, it is indelibly etched into your understanding of how stuff works so that you can even believe you hear it with your fingers rammed firmly in your ears.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

I am not angry at anything here.. just keeping you honest and letting other readers hear know that what you say is not only incorrect, it is promoting an inferior experience than what could be had. 

I have never presumed that you were ever angry at anything, I see no reason why you ever should be. When you are ready to tell to those sitting in the cheap seats precisely what it is I am saying that is incorrect, and moreover, explain to them exactly why it is incorrect, and give them an irrefutable, repeatable and rational explanation that does not rely on some subjective assessment or unquantifiable indescribable perception by way of a counter-argument then I will happily sit back, listen and take copious notes. I still will not say which I prefer though.

 

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

For those that really love music, do a bit of research, get into a decent analog rig and you won't regret. 

 

For those who really love music, just listen to the music and ignore both of us. If you like what you hear and it makes you happy then any idea of regret is not something to dwell upon.


Ohhhhh whooooa oooooooooioooh!! This may be getting out of hand. I need to see one of these or no prog for you tonight.
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
Back to Top
Aquiring the Taste View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: October 23 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 68 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 27 2012 at 04:04
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:

I clearly am not since I clearly haven't made any statements regarding a subjective bias towards digital. I have never said which I prefer, nor will I, I have never said which sounds better to me, nor will I. I have no desire to share my subjective opinions with anyone, least of all because that invariably results in my system is better than your system bollocks such as you are prone to display. I have no time nor inclination for pissing contests. No Dean, it is the only possible explanation, the symtoms are, massive insecurity,attacking those with greater knowledge,and making knowingly mileading statements to support your blief,AND AVOIDING DIRECT QUESTIONS that would expose your limmitations.

Oh, grow up for Pete's sake. Disapprove
It is you who need to grow up young man,but thank you for proving my point.

yeah, you're right - I need not attack the man, only his argument - my riposte was uncalled for and I appologise.
 

 

I dislike both analogue LPs and digital CDs equally, live music played by live musicians is far superior in every way. This is easily demonstratable to me on a subjective level because I have live recordings from concerts I attended personally and there was so much of the experience that they did not capture they pale by comparison. For this reason I can not make claim that one recording medium is perfection because it is not. I know that still does not answer this implied direct question that I am avoiding but that's as good as it gets.

 

 

peace out.

Accepted.
Like you, I dislike both :
Vinyl- because it's expensive, harder to find & most of all, I resent having to scratch plastic with a diamond to get decent sound quality, in an age when we can send probes to Mars.
C.D.- because it's greatest promise was also the biggest lie.
90+ db of dynamic range would have been wonderful but we ended up with less than we had before.
Reduced soundstage, loss of ambience & the rediculous over use of digital compression.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
    Oscar Wilde, De Profundis, 1905
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 27 2012 at 04:54
Originally posted by Aquiring the Taste Aquiring the Taste wrote:


Accepted.
Like you, I dislike both :
Vinyl- because it's expensive, harder to find & most of all, I resent having to scratch plastic with a diamond to get decent sound quality, in an age when we can send probes to Mars.
C.D.- because it's greatest promise was also the biggest lie.
90+ db of dynamic range would have been wonderful but we ended up with less than we had before.
Reduced soundstage, loss of ambience & the rediculous over use of digital compression.
I am less interested in how a format is used compared to its potential capabilities. You cannot blame the medium for the misuse made of it, that's like blaming trees for bad newspapers. In any comparison you have to compare like with like. I keep banging on about this but that's the rational, logical and honest approach - you have to compare the best of one format with the best of the other, and then you can compare the worse against the worse if you desire, but comparing the best of one against the worse of the other is simply disingenuous.
 
I have vinyls from the 70s that are horrendously compressed and modern CDs with superb dynamic range and I have vinyl (admittedly mainly Classical recordings from Deutsche Grammophon) with good dynamic range and CDs with (frankly) none. That's a simple issue of education and consumer feedback, and thankfully recent research (as provided by Mr Surrealist) suggests that the tide is turning on the infernal loudness wars.
 
The robustness of the format has to be considered and neither stand up to close scrutiny on that score. I too dislike the idea that even with perfect weight, balance and tracking every time play a vinyl I am physically touching a ridiculously soft material with the world's hardest natural material. Unfortunately the promise of laser turntables for vinyl failed to live up to expectations, but that's not surprising given the animosity towards digital technology by vinyl supporters - no one is going to invest R&D into something people will not buy, and that's a shame because the concept is a good one.


Edited by Dean - November 27 2012 at 05:01
What?
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18064 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 27 2012 at 07:45
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

...

Actually, this is a perfect example of being blinded by science.  
...

 
I think it a bit safer than being blinded by religion, btw!
 
It's a mute point ... both have their good and bad, in history ...!!!
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
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 27 2012 at 07:58
...if only moot points were truely mute. LOL
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2122232425 38>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.313 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.