KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 3, 2014 12:02:44 GMT -5
That might be something to ask for the next time we have a "home" EmoFest..... What fun it would be to have a get together and set up this Hi-End experiment with a bunch of the loungers at Emo Headquarters  Great thread-Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 3, 2014 18:50:31 GMT -5
There is no technical reason for analog to be inherently better sounding that digital. Now, there are subjective reasons a person might prefer analog over digital (I'd maintain the ritual, the tactile experience, the larger and more carefully printed artwork/liner notes are a big part of that). But, as Keith pointed out, it's possible (and quite easy) to make, for all intents and purposes, a perfect digital reproduction of an analog source. Playback would be identical.
Analog playback, by its very nature, is destructive to the source. Every time you listen to a record, you damage it to some extent. Fortunately, if you're careful enough with the record and your turntable, the destructive quality is negligible, at least for quite a long period of time. If you like the sound of your records better than the same title on CD, the best way to preserve that sound is to play it only once in order to digitize it, and then listen to the digital playback of your analog source.
Edit: This i what happens when you reply to a thread without realize there's another page plus of conversation. My post is pretty much redundant and covered by things others have said...<sigh>
|
|
insightfulman
Minor Hero
Have you seen the 6 fingered man?
Posts: 48 
|
Post by insightfulman on Oct 3, 2014 20:09:29 GMT -5
bluescale- you pretty much summed up my reasons my my vinyl preference- the ritual, the ceremony that's associated with playing vinyl.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Oct 5, 2014 19:30:37 GMT -5
@keithl
I'm curious: what turntable/arm/cartridge/phono stage have you last heard?
I think this post covers all the theoretical grounds for why digital should be better.
But we're going to inevitably get into the debate about whether the theories and measurements cover everything about audio playback. I'm sure that digital audio has stunning signal to noise ratio, ruler-flat frequency response, and way better phase fidelity than phono - and it had all that before the discovery that you need to add just the right kind of dither, upsample/oversample, keep jitter below 10 picoseconds, etc. (Forgot one: everyone digitizes with a TASCAM or equivalent A/D converter, right?)
We're also talking about the measurements and specs that are taught in colleges, published by IEEE and AES (etc.), and are thus in the public domain and free. Some companies do a lot of tests and measurements - but keep them secret. So there's a whole world of measurements and theories to which we have no access. Some of those measurements may "prove" that analog is better than digital.
It also isn't ALL about the ritual and putting up with bad sound because the ritual is somehow more important than the sound. There's a ritual around digital audio - you have to put the CD in the drawer, rip/transfer files/create a playlist, make back-ups, make sure iTunes hasn't lost your music, etc. You also have to clean the CD's and the lens from time to time, right? But whether it's digital or analog, surely we want to get past the ritual and get to the music.
One thing I'm not happy about is the pace of improvement in digital. With vinyl playback, we saw some spectacular improvements from the 70's onwards. There really was something to get excited about! I'm not sure that the $2000 Sony HAP-Z1ES with DSD sounds all that better than my Sony CA-7ES CD player ($250 about 18 years ago). Between buying a HAP-Z1ES and listening to the CA-7ES, I'm more than happy to stick with the latter. I did not think, "Oh my gosh! I've got to get that!" (The thrill is gone....)
And between the CA-7ES and my turntable.... forgetabouit.
(I should add that if you have a modern cartridge that matches your tonearm, and the arm is set up correctly, then record wear is not an issue. We are not playing Edison cylinders or shellac 78's.)
:-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 19:47:07 GMT -5
From a theoretical standpoint digital should be vastly superior to analog, audio wise. Because it's not means that we still have much to learn about why the present day approach to the science of audio engineering is flawed as it related to psychoacoustics.
|
|
|
|
Post by memotiva on Oct 6, 2014 11:11:09 GMT -5
Agreed.... I've got 24/192 recordings that sound significantly better than their CD equivalents - but we'll never know whether that's because 24/192 is really audibly better than 16/44, or because, when they were being produced, someone said "we'd better make SURE that the $12 CD sounds WORSE than the $29 "audiophile high-res recording". Likewise, if I were mixing a CD and the "audiophile vinyl pressing" to go with it, I most certainly would EQ them differently. I'd make sure that the CD sounded "sharp and clear" - just like people expect from a digital recording, and I'd mix the vinyl version to sound "smooth and mellow" - because I'm pretty sure that's what vinyl fans would want. The last thing I would be doing would be to try and make them sound the same. My point is more that the question is misguided. Digital can be better as can modern webpages when they try to do fancy things like advanced quoting. Unfortunately, as you see here, I can't even get out of the quotes on this website because whoever implemented this forum tried to get way too fancy. The net result of digital in music has been negative. Poorly mastered recordings that use dynamic compression being compressed and sold via companies who have used digital to destroy alternative distribution methods. Could digital be better? Yes. Is it? No. It's controlled by people who care about money and not music. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 6, 2014 11:45:40 GMT -5
It also isn't ALL about the ritual and putting up with bad sound because the ritual is somehow more important than the sound. I don't think anyone is arguing that you have to put us with bad sound if you use a turntable. There are turntables and records that sound phenomenal. When I mentioned the ritual involved with listening to a record I meant that as a positive and not as a slight. The ritual lends itself well to the emotional connection we have with our music. While I don't have a turntable any more myself, I love going over to my father-in-law's house, going through his records, and selecting something to listen to. I enjoy the ritual, as it forces me to slow down a bit, and show respect for the medium. There's a ritual around digital audio - you have to put the CD in the drawer, rip/transfer files/create a playlist, make back-ups, make sure iTunes hasn't lost your music, etc. You also have to clean the CD's and the lens from time to time, right? But whether it's digital or analog, surely we want to get past the ritual and get to the music. I won't speak for others, but I certainly don't find much pleasure managing my digital library. With my ripped CDs, it's all about getting to the music as fast as I can. There's something to be said for that, but I wouldn't call what you're describing here as a ritual so much as a chore. I'm sure there are people who feel the same way about records. Those folks probably have little interest in maintaining an analog library, as it takes considerably more work to keep it pristine. |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Oct 6, 2014 13:07:50 GMT -5
DC is a bit out of my hearing range for some reason so analog sound seems to be my only option. As for the storage of the data I prefer the reliability and repeatability of digital with a nice DAC. Is a DAC perfect? My guess is yes within the range of what a human can perceive. Added imperfections sell for good money though so that market is not going anywhere.
|
|
emovac
Emo VIPs 
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Oct 7, 2014 2:30:37 GMT -5
I converted from vinyl and never looked book. Had many high quality vinyl recordings from Nautilus, Columbia, and Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, even had a UHQR of I Robot. Digital is much easier, especially now flac files have advanced. I use a Bryston USB transport which works absolutely great in provided great sound. Sitting around controlling the tunes on the ipad sure simplifies things for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Oct 7, 2014 13:22:44 GMT -5
Just to add a little comment about vinyl listening destroying the source, Art Dudley and Michael Fremer over at Stereophile adamantly disagree with this and point to heavily played records in their own collection that have withstood the process. The rebuke that statement as a myth.
Me, I don't know.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Oct 7, 2014 22:18:32 GMT -5
I converted from vinyl and never looked book. Had many high quality vinyl recordings from Nautilus, Columbia, and Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Yep, me too. I spent gobs of cash on original master pressings from the labels you quote, record cleaners, anti-static machines and album sleeves. And then along came CD's. I never looked back. I had the fourth cd player on the market if i remember correctly. I literally threw out HUNDREDS of albums in the mid 90's. I couldn't give them away at that point. I do very much regret that, but not for the music. I've duplicated all of that in digital. I wish I still had all that awesome cover art! That's the part I miss the most. Reading and admiring the art while listening... |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 8, 2014 11:58:57 GMT -5
This is an important conversation for audiophiles IMO. But… Having read through the entire thread it surprises me the concept provided from the linked article below has not been mentioned within this conversation. I'm posting just one link below, but a quick google search for, "myth of high res audio", "24 bit vs 16 bit audio", etc etc will render literally dozens of scientific papers and studies on the subject of whether, or not 24 bit/192khz ± audio has any real meaning or benefit to the fidelity of audio. The author of this article backs his claim up with much scientific evidence and anecdotal proofs and even goes on to mention a study done with the Boston Audio Society where well over 500 people sampled comparisons of the same audio files at 16 bit vs 24 bit with high sampling rates and the conclusions were a draw, in other words even experts could not tell any difference in a quantifiable way. xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.htmlI'm not saying I buy into this myself, but it does introduce some profound thoughts and conclusions. Not willing to let a dead dog lie I did some further investigation. Understand I have been at this computer based audio thing for well over a decade now and at least to my ears have felt time and again the higher resolution audio files do sound different and mostly better than their Redbook CD counterparts. However like so many have pointed out we might not know if the masters and editing were also identical and therein lies the rub. So whats a self respecting audiophile to do in order to get to the bottom of this? Ask the experts of course. Effectively I contacted one of the highest regarded recording companies on the planet to get their take on this via email but they responded to me in a telephone call just yesterday. At no point was I ever given the impression they were trying to sell me something or high res snake oil, just the opposite in fact, the conversation was meaningful, polite and full of technical information by one of their editors at the studio. Effectively all of their new recordings are done at 24/176, period. And was emphatically informed the down sampled HDCD's they produce are the same identical audio files, other than downsampling of their higher resolution files which can be purchased from them or other online purveyors and most importantly they DO sound different. Previous to this I had also contacted yet another high end recording studio, this one in Germany, Stockfish Records. Fabulous recordings on SACD and Blu Ray disc. The audio engineer himself replied to me who apparently has designed and built their own recording gear named after him Pauler Audio or something along those lines. Here is the fly in the ointment, he said they record at 24 bit/44.1 kHz because he thinks its sounds much better than the higher sampling rates. In other words buy one of their SACD's and you're getting 24/44.1 not 24/192 or higher, go figure. But there is no arguing with the results the sound is awesome. Addressing Keith's original premise that "Digital is Better", well maybe in some cases and in some ways but much of the argument at least to me doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Lets take the concept of accuracy. If digital is purportedly more accurate and by no small measure, then why is it that all DACS sound different, let alone ADC's? If absolute accuracy is the claim, then all DACS should sound identical, and all COAX cables should sound identical and COAX transfer of the signal compared to Toslink Optical should also sound identical. But we all know (or I think we should) this is not the case. As so many have pointed out digital wins in the convenience department, not even close in this regard. As for the mythical, organic touchy feely thing of handling records or CD's for that matter, nope not me, I just don't lay awake at night waiting to get my hands on the next piece of vinyl to spin or laying a disc in the drawer. But having just re-entered into the analog world about half a year ago after a 25+ year hiatus much to my surprise dealing with records has not been as obtrusive or inhibiting as presumed before embarking on this adventure. And setting up a turntable is not for the feint of heart and in this case it was a trial by fire. Pops in clicks for the most part have not been as bad as imagined, digital does have a quitter background and analog due to the higher gain stage does have a noisier background and it can be finicky at best. Conclusion? So far I have yet to hear a digital playback sound subjectively better than the analog counterparts and will be the first to admit this makes no sense and in fact am still fighting this notion to some degree. Just last night I put on the SHM SACD version of Steely Dan's Aja. It was smooth, resolute, dynamic enough but something was missing. It seemed opaque and thick for lack of a better term. Half way through I hit the stop button, got out my old original limited edition vinyl version of Aja and put on the second side. No comparison, it had life, toe tapping attributes the SACD simply did not convey. I'm not talking about warm sound here either, in fact it was just the opposite. Hopefully this sheds some new light and added benefit to the conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Oct 8, 2014 17:51:49 GMT -5
all DACS should sound identical, and all COAX cables should sound identical and COAX transfer of the signal compared to Toslink Optical should also sound identical. Digital cables only sound different when you spend more than monoprice prices. It is the sound of wasted money, to some is it smooth and pleasing. To others it is harsh and unpleasant. To each their own. As for DACs sounding different, even that is a bit hard for me to believe but maybe some people really can hear differences in the analog section of their DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 8, 2014 18:15:22 GMT -5
As for DACs sounding different, even that is a bit hard for me to believe but maybe some people really can hear differences in the analog section of their DAC. Just for the record even Keith has started many a thread on the differences in various DACs detailing the differences in their sound. I've owned a lot of them myself from Adcom, to Wadia, Krells, Eastern Electric (ESS Sabre), Arcams, Peachtree Audio, and even Emotiva. I don't recall any of them sounding the same or even nearly so. If your interested I would encourage you to look back into the archives to read through some of Keiths threads he has started on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Oct 8, 2014 18:44:17 GMT -5
As for DACs sounding different, even that is a bit hard for me to believe but maybe some people really can hear differences in the analog section of their DAC. Just for the record even Keith has started many a thread on the differences in various DACs detailing the differences in their sound. I've owned a lot of them myself from Adcom, to Wadia, Krells, Eastern Electric (ESS Sabre), Arcams, Peachtree Audio, and even Emotiva. I don't recall any of them sounding the same or even nearly so. If your interested I would encourage you to look back into the archives to read through some of Keiths threads he has started on the subject. Sure, I'll look into it. If there is not a reasonable explanation of why one would sound different (Measurements, Double Blind Study, well documented and published theory) I may quickly lose interest though. As for digital cables sounding different, that is pure myth. |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Oct 8, 2014 22:05:57 GMT -5
Just for the record even Keith has started many a thread on the differences in various DACs detailing the differences in their sound. I've owned a lot of them myself from Adcom, to Wadia, Krells, Eastern Electric (ESS Sabre), Arcams, Peachtree Audio, and even Emotiva. I don't recall any of them sounding the same or even nearly so. If your interested I would encourage you to look back into the archives to read through some of Keiths threads he has started on the subject. Sure, I'll look into it. If there is not a reasonable explanation of why one would sound different (Measurements, Double Blind Study, well documented and published theory) I may quickly lose interest though. As for digital cables sounding different, that is pure myth. Erm... well... From a philosophical/logical point of view, a "reasonable explanation" is not necessary for a phenomenon to exist. We have a phenomenon called "radioactivity" - where a heavy atom splits into lighter atoms, with a release of some energetic particles. No one knows why, or when, an atom will split. The fact that we don't have an explanation does not mean that radioactivity does not exist - it only means that we don't have an explanation of the phenomenon. Now as for whether the phenomenon of "DACs sound different" exists or not.... if you don't hear the difference between DAC's, then you don't hear it. If you hear it, then you hear it. Either way, the "explanation" is not central to the issue. Trust your ears and that's your reality. |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Oct 8, 2014 23:10:44 GMT -5
Yay, a DAC argument! *insert Schiit joke here* From a philosophical/logical point of view, a "reasonable explanation" is not necessary for a phenomenon to exist. Yes, a reasonable explanation is necessary. I don't believe in miracles or magic. I thought David Hume crushed such thinking over 200 years ago. We have a phenomenon called "radioactivity" - where a heavy atom splits into lighter atoms, with a release of some energetic particles. No one knows why, or when, an atom will split. The fact that we don't have an explanation does not mean that radioactivity does not exist - it only means that we don't have an explanation of the phenomenon. The problem with your argument is that we do have an explanation of radioactivity and we have very good statistical probability to predict it. Your lack of understanding does not make it magic. Now as for whether the phenomenon of "DACs sound different" exists or not.... if you don't hear the difference between DAC's, then you don't hear it. If you hear it, then you hear it. Either way, the "explanation" is not central to the issue. Trust your ears and that's your reality. You seem fixed on this phenomenon thing. If you can hear a difference but not measure a difference please take two placebo and try again. |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Oct 9, 2014 1:26:46 GMT -5
Yay, a DAC argument! *insert Schiit joke here* From a philosophical/logical point of view, a "reasonable explanation" is not necessary for a phenomenon to exist. Yes, a reasonable explanation is necessary. I don't believe in miracles or magic. I thought David Hume crushed such thinking over 200 years ago. We have a phenomenon called "radioactivity" - where a heavy atom splits into lighter atoms, with a release of some energetic particles. No one knows why, or when, an atom will split. The fact that we don't have an explanation does not mean that radioactivity does not exist - it only means that we don't have an explanation of the phenomenon. The problem with your argument is that we do have an explanation of radioactivity and we have very good statistical probability to predict it. Your lack of understanding does not make it magic. Now as for whether the phenomenon of "DACs sound different" exists or not.... if you don't hear the difference between DAC's, then you don't hear it. If you hear it, then you hear it. Either way, the "explanation" is not central to the issue. Trust your ears and that's your reality. You seem fixed on this phenomenon thing. If you can hear a difference but not measure a difference please take two placebo and try again. We can detect radioactivity, but we cannot explain it. Why would a uranium atom, which has been sitting around for billions of years, suddenly decide to split? Why would this process go on and then stop? I guess I'm looking for an "explanation", not a "description". If you have an explanation, you might win a Nobel Prize. A detail about the placebo effect, that is often missed, is that it's temporary. After the two placebos wore off, I still didn't like digital - and then I felt I was lied to. If you need a measurement to tell you what you're hearing.... well, I think you're limiting yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 9, 2014 2:02:41 GMT -5
We can detect radioactivity, but we cannot explain it. Why would a uranium atom, which has been sitting around for billions of years, suddenly decide to split? Why would this process go on and then stop? I guess I'm looking for an "explanation", not a "description". If you have an explanation, you might win a Nobel Prize. It's really not that difficult to explain. If an atom is unstable, it will seek to stabalize itself: www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/radiation.htmlSo your assertion is that subjective evidence trumps objective evidence? I don't see, smell or hear any radiation in the room when I get x-rays at the dentist, so why do those jerks keep putting a lead vest on me and walking out of the room?  |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Oct 9, 2014 3:19:06 GMT -5
We can detect radioactivity, but we cannot explain it. Why would a uranium atom, which has been sitting around for billions of years, suddenly decide to split? Why would this process go on and then stop? I guess I'm looking for an "explanation", not a "description". If you have an explanation, you might win a Nobel Prize. It's really not that difficult to explain. If an atom is unstable, it will seek to stabalize itself: www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/radiation.htmlSo your assertion is that subjective evidence trumps objective evidence? I don't see, smell or hear any radiation in the room when I get x-rays at the dentist, so why do those jerks keep putting a lead vest on me and walking out of the room? An EPA webpage is not the place to get info on the cutting edge of physics. The EPA needs to move the discussion pretty quickly to clean-up issues, etc. Why does the atom suddenly become "unstable"? (The atom has been stable for over 4.5 billion years! Why is it that half of them somehow decide to become unstable?) And the words "vibrate" and "contorts" aren't really scientific terms. Vibrate refers to mechanical motion - but we're talking about an atom nucleus. "Contorts"... is something in gymnastics and dancing? And after the "instability" starts, why does it suddenly stop? An explanation of radiation may come with an expanded theory of the Strong Force. Or may be we need to wait for String Theory, or the successor to String Theory. It's going to take decades. Radiation cannot be detected by our noses or ears. We know that experientially because we can be put into a room which has radiation and we cannot smell it, hear it, see it, feel or taste it. (The people who discovered radiation in the early 20th century went through all this - at great cost to their own health.) But audio, is by definition, something that we can hear. So help me out here: Scenario 1: 1. A measurement (or set of measurements) says Audio System A is "better" than Audio System B. 2. When I listen, I "prefer" Audio System B. Should I get Audio System A or Audio System B? I think the answer is: System B. Scenario 2: 1. A measurement (or set of measurements) says Audio System A is "better " than Audio System B. 2. When I listen, I cannot tell the difference between Audio System A or Audio System B. Should I get Audio System A or Audio System B? I think the answer should be: get whatever system is cheaper. Scenario 3: 1. A measurement (or set of measurements) says Audio System A is "better" than Audio System B. 2. I don't need to listen, Audio System A has been proven to be better than Audio System B. So I just need to get Audio System A. I sure hope Audio System A is cheaper than Audio System B! I also hope Audio System A isn't a Bose system. They have a lot of theory and measurements to prove that their system is the "best". My point is that the ultimate arbiter is..... your ears. So yes, when it comes to audio, our subjective experience trumps theory and measurements. The theories and measurements are very incomplete. And the whole point of an audio system is to provide "enjoyment". |
|
What fun it would be to have a get together and set up this Hi-End experiment with a bunch of the loungers at Emo Headquarters 
