| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
mystic fred 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252
|
 Posted: April 21 2006 at 09:14 |
...i wondered how long it would take mike and oliver to lock horns on this subject!! i use analogue and digital so i will sit firmly on the fence and say it's all down to personal taste..!!
|
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
 |
Empathy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 09:32 |
 oliverstoned wrote:
You really need a big sl***!!
Keep on ruining the site with your bad bands which ar enot prog at all! |
Hey, a healthy debate is one thing, but there's no need to get personal or overly emotional about it.
|
Pure Brilliance:
|
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 15:50 |
DeepPhreeze wrote:
For me, since I have almost super-human hearing, I can pick out little tiny details in music most people cannot.
|
hearing ability, like vision, depends on your age - people under 25 usually have perfect hearing, after that it deteriorates over the years without you realising it.
|
Prog Archives Tour Van
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 15:57 |
mystic fred wrote:
DeepPhreeze wrote:
For me, since I have almost super-human hearing, I can pick out little tiny details in music most people cannot.
|
hearing ability, like vision, depends on your age - people under 25 usually have perfect hearing, after that it deteriorates over the years without you realising it. |
That's assuming that they don't damage their ears ... but in reality, with concerts/disco/walkman, you can be sure that most people who do these things can not hear anything above 18khz. And from 30 and upward: 16khz tops.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 21 2006 at 17:17
|
|
|
|
Empathy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:10 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
That's assuming that they don't damage their ears ... but in
reality, with concerts/disco/walkman, you can be sure that most people
who do these things can not hear anything above 18khz. And from 30 and
upward: 16khz tops. |
Thanks, you really improved my mood, Mike!  
|
Pure Brilliance:
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:17 |
Empathy wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
That's assuming that they don't damage their ears ... but in reality, with concerts/disco/walkman, you can be sure that most people who do these things can not hear anything above 18khz. And from 30 and upward: 16khz tops. |
Thanks, you really improved my mood, Mike!
|
Sorry to break it to you!  But knowing that you can hear less detail than you could 5 years ago shouldn't affect your listening experience. Well, knowing that you will die shouldn't affect your quality of life either (in theory)!
|
|
|
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 18:57 |
DeepPhreeze wrote:
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.
|
Not in actual terms; MP3 is like a pixellated JPEG but a CD is like a
bitmap. And to extend a metaphor rather too far, FLAC is like a PNG..! 
I need to use the nerd emoticon but it's not there
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 19:02 |
"Not in actual terms; MP3 is like a pixellated JPEG but a CD is like a bitmap. And to extend a metaphor rather too far, FLAC is like a PNG"
True. But audiophiles claim that even the PNG is not enough ... the ridiculous thing about it is that they say that it's not enough regardless of resolution. Twice as much, ten times as much ... no, they say that analog has infinite resolution and is therefore always superior. Unfortunately the human ear/eye also has a finite resolution. If not, what would we need microscopes for?
The ULTIMATE solution to solving such disputes are ... listening tests. People are presented with two samples and are asked to pick the better one. The test is repeated many times ... in the abx type of tests they even get three samples ... a (e.g. analog), b (e.g. digital) and x (one of the other two, test subject doesn't know which) and then the user is asked to say whether x is a or b. The user can switch between all three as often as he likes.
In theory (AND in common sense) it's obvious that if the result is 50:50, the two samples a and b are identical as perceived by the subject.
Simple, completely objective test ... yet neither audiophiles nor the manufacturers of audiophile equipment conduct these tests.
I wonder why ...  |
|
|
|
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1509
|
Posted: April 25 2006 at 01:53 |
All things being equal analog is better for sound reproduction, however that being said. I can tell you that some systems incorporating digital techniques are excellent.
Many people listen to music on their computers and that's fine, but a far cry from a home stereo system costing thousands of dollars or whatever your currency is.
The system I have now is far better than any other system I have ever owned and that includes the systems that had turntables to spin vinyl on. The music system I have now uses a very good CD player, pre-amp, power amp, and speakers. The sound is anything but so called "digital sounding" but you have to spend a lot of money to get it.
One advantage that digital gives you is reduced noise floor. Old analog tape had a habit of giving you tape hiss. Many of the digital remasters of the music produced in the 70's are very good. Digital sound processors can be used to shape modify or eliminate noise, thus giving a cleaner sound and a "blacker" soundstage.
|
|
Masque
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 01 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 808
|
Posted: April 25 2006 at 02:24 |
Volume War !When digital is treated with respect and the "volume war" is not in progress and there is no trace of clipping I prefer Digital, but nine times out of ten this isn`t the case. Digital is superior but technology has been abused in the "volume war" (they do it for radio stations etc .. to try and make their song louder, its stupid because radio stations compress what they broadcast anyway) that brings the quality down to try and peak out the digital recordings. if the Gain limitations are kept within analog specifications and no "volume war" is being battled, digital wins everytime. A good example of what I am talking about is Vapor Trails by Rush , thats what I mean by "volume war" Digital like Analog has gain limitions but analog gain limtations are slightly more forgiving but also slightly more inferior . 
Edited by Masque - April 25 2006 at 02:39
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: April 25 2006 at 04:49 |
|
Digital is superior?!!
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174
|
Posted: April 26 2006 at 03:02 |
13:15 ... nothing's decided yet. 
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Analog Or Digital
