Author Topic: Analog vs Digital  (Read 8593 times)

djdube525

  • Guest
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2012, 04:55:31 PM »
Content trumps sound quality.

That's a bit of an evolved opinion over the years... no?

Offline Werd

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Return of the Hot Librarians 2016
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2012, 05:21:23 PM »
Rich, I understand your point but the is an audiophile website.
We are supposed to be concerned with sound quality.
If we couldn't agree to disagree then what would be the point of it al.
Of course music comes first,but,music takes a backseat on sites like this
Just sayin
U

I agree 
Its not just sound quality but a personal sound stage identity also. This is fundamental, to the point where i personally discovered a new found respect for music genres that i never wouldve considered through a car stereo. Classical and chamber for eg needs to be heard through a system thats low distortion, low noise and playbacked in a system thats customized to my liking. Or its a no go. So its not just content but really a quality that works to enhance the content.
Nola Viper Reference iii, Nola Blue Thunder Subs, Chapter Couplet 400s, Chapter Précis 250 integrated set to pre, Bryston BDA2/BDP1.
Torus RM-20 240v

Gutwire, TWL, Wywires,

Offline topround

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Life without Bach, would be a mistake
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2012, 05:32:50 PM »
I actually love listening to classical music in my car.
String and Piano Quartets are my fav!

Bigger stuff does tend to need a bigger system,. Big tone poems really deserve a big system :thumb:

I must be honest, I have gotten more goosebumps in my car than in my system. I think it has to do with the environemnt your are in and mindset.

I have been moved to tears in my car listening to some Bach, and I have the stock shit car system.
Do you guys remember Levis car system?  That was nice!
Would love to hear a cantata on that!
System consists of an amp a preamp, 2 speakers a turntable and a phono preamp, Also some cables and power cords and a really cheap cd player.

Offline Carlman

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2012, 05:36:40 PM »
Of course music comes first,but,music takes a backseat on sites like this
No, not really... on this site they're equal.  The music depends on the system and your system depends on the music... and both depend your subjective tastes...   Also, there are music discussion areas.  I do wish people would talk about music.. but wishing it and making it happen are 2 different things.

In any case...
The point I took from Rich's post that the format that best reproduces the sound is usually going to be the format of the era... or basically what suits the content.

-C
I really enjoy listening to music.

Offline topround

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Life without Bach, would be a mistake
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2012, 06:06:51 PM »
That truly oversimplifies the recording industry.

Great recordings are possible regardless of era.

I heard a 1958 record that most will never hear, it was Also Sprach in stereo.
Perhaps the greatest recording ever made, even by todays standards.
I think we think we are so smart, so digitally evolved, yet we forget the human element in this, the mastering, the cutting, the engineering, all elements that were decided by humans not computers. The best guys made the best recordings.
When people like the greats rise to the surface again then todays recordings will be great,.
Unfortunately todays recordings are usually regarded as commercial products, driven by profit...quality is not really considered because most people who listen are not audiophiles, MP3's have become the defacto standard for most people on the planet. Why would a industry devote time and money for a great recording, when playback cannot realize it. At least for 99% of the systems people use(not us audiophiles)
Thank god some of the indy labels are trying to produce good sounding stuff, but they are the small guys.
Gaga, Carly Rae, Katy Perry, all bad recordings, most people could care less about the quality of the recording.

I think one of the reasons the websites devoted to audiophiles is so popular is because people realize a problem with the recording industry. We try so hard to get great sound out of mediocre recordings, so much so we spend tons of money to get there. It shouldn't be so hard, we are looking at the surfaces of other planets for Gods sake! Having great recordings should be absolutley assumed, since we are so sophisticated. But really the art in recording has been lost in most art.
We look back to the great days of analogue, and while tubes may have had a big hand in the quality of the recording, we believe it was the tubes alone. It was the guys in the mastering room who gave a shit! If we had some of those guys today working in the digital format , we would have much better results than we have  to settle for today!

Carl,
Thank you for hosting this site, it helps prop up those who care about good sound, and that is why we are here.

Sorry for the rant, but sometimes you have to look outside the box. This hobby should not require 1500 dollar power cords, $800 caps, $1000's of dollars of silly tweaks to make music sound good, sometimes I feel like a rat caught in a maze, with this hobby...and someone put me in there, knowing there is no way out. Like putting lipstick on a pig.

Some people have their causes, you have your tree huggers, save the whales, stop nukes...my cause would be better recordings...because the rising tide would bring us all with it.


Mike
System consists of an amp a preamp, 2 speakers a turntable and a phono preamp, Also some cables and power cords and a really cheap cd player.

DaveC

  • Guest
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2012, 09:00:25 PM »
So do you vinyl guys think it is worth it to make a hi-rez digi rip of your albums so you can just put them away and preserve them?

I just got a hi-rez dac and was listening to a 24/96 Miles Davis rip, and WOW, it is really good!

Not to mention the convenience of digital playback. I would guess with today's technology you couldn't discern a digi rip from a turntable if the rip was done on the exact same turntable with a good A to D converter and a good DAC on the other end... plus you can use click, pop and hiss eliminators to clean up the digi rip if needed.

Offline mdconnelly

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1439
  • new ways to dream...
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2012, 07:56:00 AM »
So do you vinyl guys think it is worth it to make a hi-rez digi rip of your albums so you can just put them away and preserve them? ...

I know people that do this and have heard some amazing music ripped just that way.  If done right, it is a time-consuming, painstaking effort focused at optimizing preservation of the music while removing pops & ticks and background noise without harm.  The technology exists to do this.  Sigh, but we are a lazy lot...  (well, OK, I am ;-)

I think this is a fascinating thread because it highlights just how unique a time period we are living in with respect to music playback.  So, so much music!   So many options for high-quality playback!   It just feeds the nervosa of this hobby.   

Rich said 'Content trumps sound quality.'    So here's my take on that....  There is certain music I love from back in the day, but the recordings (or my recordings) kinda suck.  When I play in on my 'big rig', it just sounds bad.  It highlights the bad recording or media or mastering which keeps me from enjoying the music.  But, when I play it on my kitchen boom box or in the car, it brings back all that made that music great.  I don't ever want to lose that music, but I'm also never going to enjoy it the way I do state-of-the-art recordings.  And I'm totally OK with that.

 


Offline BobM

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2012, 08:38:53 AM »
Me too. I've got cassette recordings that I made 30 years ago. They sound like crap on the big rig, so I pulled out my tape deck there. However, I can still enjoy them immensely on my old Walkman on my train commute to work.
Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you'll have to blow your nose.

Offline Werd

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Return of the Hot Librarians 2016
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2012, 09:08:16 AM »
Me too. I've got cassette recordings that I made 30 years ago. They sound like crap on the big rig, so I pulled out my tape deck there. However, I can still enjoy them immensely on my old Walkman on my train commute to work.


"your old walkman"  :rofl: :thumb:
Nola Viper Reference iii, Nola Blue Thunder Subs, Chapter Couplet 400s, Chapter Précis 250 integrated set to pre, Bryston BDA2/BDP1.
Torus RM-20 240v

Gutwire, TWL, Wywires,

Offline BobM

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2012, 11:32:10 AM »
Oh yeah - one of these beauties ->

Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you'll have to blow your nose.

Offline machinehead

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
    • Affordable Web Design & Development
Re: Analog vs Digital
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2012, 01:09:05 PM »
Heres the one I had... it was awesome!
JVC Cassette Walkman 1987 model CX5 in rare RED
Its cool ndude.