Analog sound: Real or myth?

[davetroy]

I suspect I'm going to take some abuse for asking these questions, but here goes. Hey, if I asked them at Audiogon, I'd probably get banned.

I often see people talking about "analog sound" and how certain CD players are supposedly better at producing "analog sound." Here are my questions:

1. Has anybody ever done blind listening tests in which a CD player was compared to, for instance, a turntable? If so, what were the results?
2. What the heck is analog sound? I know it's the sound of vinyl records played on a turntable, but what is the supposed audible difference between analog sound and the sound from a CD player?
3. Is it possible for a CD player to produce this so-called analog sound?

If there's another thread on this topic that I've missed, please direct me to it. I haven't been able to find one. I'm asking these questions because of all the audio things I'm skeptical about (cables, etc.), getting better sound from a supposedly high-end CD player is the one I'm most skeptical about. And because, for the most part, I missed the vinyl age.

Thanks,
Dave

[outsider]

In order for you to hear the sound, it has to be analog. That is why a CD player has a Digital to Analog Converter (DAC; D/A Converter).
The quality of the DAC, along with the quality of the internal components of a CD player contribute to the quality of the output signal which effects the quality of the sound coming out of your speakers.

Can anyone tell the difference between different CD players when both are A/B tested with the same preamp, amp, cables, and speakers? Probably a few can, but the average person would have a hard time.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=davetroy]I suspect I'm going to take some abuse for asking these questions, but here goes. Hey, if I asked them at Audiogon, I'd probably get banned.

Well, you came to the right place then. No banning, no abuse. Just some discussions:D

I often see people talking about "analog sound" and how certain CD players are supposedly better at producing "analog sound."

Analog sound is kind of subjective, isn't it?


[v]1. Has anybody ever done blind listening tests in which a CD player was compared to, for instance, a turntable? [/b]


Why would anyone compare those two? Of course they sound different. One should ask, which is more accurate to the signal at the mic cable output? One guess only:D


2. What the heck is analog sound? I know it's the sound of vinyl records played on a turntable, but what is the supposed audible difference between analog sound and the sound from a CD player?

Vinyl has tremendous limitations compared to the CD capability, period, end of story. After that, some just make excuses. Or, just expressing a preference. Hard to discuss a preference in technical terms.



3. Is it possible for a CD player to produce this so-called analog sound?

Certainly. Record a vinyl to a CD and you have it. It will sound like that vinyl.


[v] I'm asking these questions because of all the audio things I'm skeptical about (cables, etc.), getting better sound from a supposedly high-end CD player is the one I'm most skeptical about. [/b]


As you should be.
One can design a CD player to be euphonic. Or, one that is accurate. Price does not dictate accuracy, by the way :D
To get better sound, concentrate on your speaker's quality, your room acoustics and the quality of your CD. Much of modern music is compressed to the hilt, and sounds terrible. That is not the fault of the medium but what the market dictates:eek:
These 3 items makes the most audible differences, not the rest of the chain combined.


And because, for the most part, I missed the vinyl age.
Thanks,
Dave


Then, you have less to worry about. You don't have a nostalgia to feed. But, you do need to concentrate on the 3 issues above. :D

[tbewick]

I haven't been able to find one. I'm asking these questions because of all the audio things I'm skeptical about (cables, etc.), getting better sound from a supposedly high-end CD player is the one I'm most skeptical about. And because, for the most part, I missed the vinyl age.

Thanks,
Dave

Strangely, I think it's possible that you could get better sound on lower quality playback material on a higher-end player, due to their DAC designs. This may be down to digital clipping:

'For an FIR filter the very maximum output value, or overshoot, will occur with an input signal that causes the magnitude of all the coefficients to be added. This input signal would consist of positive and negative full-scale values that all have the same sign (or all have the opposite sign) as the coefficient with which they are aligned. This pattern is very unlikely to exist in a real signal but represents an upper bound to the amount of overshoot that could occur. This value is shown for each of the filters in figure 1 to 4 and can be seen to vary between 2.9 and 5.7dB.

Clipping of DAC interpolation filters can often be observed when presenting them with a square wave peaking at close to full scale. (This may look clean but it can be shown to be clipping by reducing the level slightly and a clipped ringing overshoot will be observed on the filter output.) This clipping represents a sharp, or high order, non-linearity that should be avoided.'

- Julian Dunn - `The benefits of 96 kHz sampling rate formats for those who cannot hear above 20 kHz' Preprint 4734, presented at the 104th AES Convention, Amsterdam, May 1998. http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf

As it says, this shouldn't occur in normal signals, but as mtrycrafts says, a lot of pop music is compressed very close to full-scale nowadays. I don't know of any proper tests that have examined how audible clipping typically is with such material. Personally I like to renormalize aggressively mastered CD tracks to a lower volume in order to give the converter's analog filters some headroom.

I'd say that top-end CD players will offer higher quality performance in objective terms, but most half-decent players should perform exceedingly well.

There was meant to be some issues with early digital recordings because dither was not used properly, meaning that low volume signals became distorted. Criticism here then, of early digital systems, may be valid. Some people do like the vinyl sound because they do often sound warmer, but this is probably mostly due to vinyls having less top-end treble than CD's.

[davetroy]

[QUOTE=mtrycrafts][QUOTE=davetroy]
Certainly. Record a vinyl to a CD and you have it. It will sound like that vinyl.

From my experience, that seems to be a bad thing. In the classical CDs I have that were originally released on vinyl, it seems as if the high ends are cut off, especially with voices and horns. I guess shrilly might be the word.

[MDS]

How was the vinyl recorded to a CD? If you do it properly and use the appropriate pre-amp with the built-in RIAA curve then the recording quality will only be limited by the quality of the analog to digital conversion (which is pretty good even if you use your computer's sound card to do it).

In other words, it should sound pretty much the same as the record as mtrycrafts said.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=davetroy
From my experience, that seems to be a bad thing. In the classical CDs I have that were originally released on vinyl, it seems as if the high ends are cut off, especially with voices and horns. I guess shrilly might be the word.[/QUOTE]

Are these CDs your copies of vinyl or from music companies out there?
How old are they if commercial CDs? If, they are way back when CDs came on the market, there was growing pain by the recording engineers. Cds have flat response to 20kHz and to full scale.

[yettitheman]

Analog... ah, makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Either way, whether it be a digital or analog connection, a DAC is needed so the amp can spit out tunes through the speakers. The difference being where amplification and the conversion takes place. Some CD players do it better than the DAC's in a reciever, and sometimes the CD player's DAC's blow. (gross exaggeration, but you get what I mean)

[Nick250]

The quality of the media is far and away the biggest variable in my experience. Some Cd's have great sound, though most I listened to do not. In particular, the lack of dynamic range bothers me the most.

Nick

[jonnythan]

I think that when people talk about "analog sound" they're most often referring to sound that was never digitized or passed through solid state electronics. Recorded to an analog medium, mixed in an analog environment, pressed to an analog record, and amplified by an analog, non solid-state devices tube amps).

Or, at least, sound reproduced from an analog medium (a record) as opposed to a digital one (cd/mp3/SACD/etc)

[Seth=L]

When speaking about audio quality you almost always should be looking at the source of the recording and not so much the medium used. Most music production companies record the master tracks digitally now days. Very few still record analog. Some times if you buy a new vinyl it may have been copied from a digital master, pretty much making it a moot point or even make it sound worse than if it had been copied to CD.

Data compression and dynamic compression are common problems associated with CDs and LPs that are derived from a digital master. Strict analog recordings for some reason sound more dynamic and real because perhaps it is more difficult to manipulate an analog recording in the digital domain. The calculations required would probably be more difficult at least they used to be.

The point is that it is much simpler and more cost effective to record digital and production companies will do exactly what saves them money. With all the people listening to MP3s and illegally copied music you can expect them to cut corners everywhere. And most importantly, they are not selling to audiophiles, they are selling to those that think the iPod is a high quality audio device. Most people don't notice that their newest CDs sound bad because they have crap for audio components and/or they don't care as much as the audiophiles do.

The only thing that I don't understand is why they see that it is fit to compress the dynamics of an audio track. Are they doing it to limit the feasible damage to our audio components? If that is why they are only trying to protect themselves from possibly being sued because the dynamics damaged something in a sound system.:rolleyes: I wish I knew why they did it, I would think it would raise costs to compress dynamics. What do I know though, right?:D

[davetroy]

When I said vinyl recorded to digital, I meant analog recorded to digital. The recordings are mid-1950s opera recordings, and although the sound on the CDs are generally very nice (Testament label; really nice stuff), the only time things go sour is when the horns go high or the voices get high. Then, it seems as if the sound hits a ceiling and gets very bright. It's not a problem with my system; it's probably a problem with the analog to digital recording, from what I can tell.

That's why I say that from that experience, analog or vinyl sound is not what I want. And I suspect that the warmth and lack of electronic sound I'm looking for (in classical and opera recordings) will only come with improved speakers because even with very good recordings, there's just that touch of electric. I don't know any other way to put it.

[Seth=L]

You must realize that CD has it limits. Have you tried SACD or DVD-Audio in high resolution 2 channel?

Vinyl, for the sake of things, has a wider frequency range than CDs I believe. What speakers do you have? What are your other system components? Do you have acoustic treatments or lack treatments that could possibly be detrimental to the upper-end?

[tbewick]

When I said vinyl recorded to digital, I meant analog recorded to digital. The recordings are mid-1950s opera recordings, and although the sound on the CDs are generally very nice (Testament label; really nice stuff), the only time things go sour is when the horns go high or the voices get high. Then, it seems as if the sound hits a ceiling and gets very bright. It's not a problem with my system; it's probably a problem with the analog to digital recording, from what I can tell.

One of the things that was done on some digital versions of old 78 recordings was CEDAR (Computer Enhanced Digital Audio Recording). In some cases this improved sound quality, but in others it could lend a shrill tone to some instruments. I've read that the Nimbus record label had a somewhat surprising alternative technique for removing hiss on early recordings. What they did was to replay the record on an old Gramophone with a huge acoustical horn in a concert hall and re-record it digitally. Using a thorn needle helped to lower hiss and subjectively the technique helped to curb 'peakiness' in the final recording.

Data compression and dynamic compression are common problems associated with CDs and LPs that are derived from a digital master. Strict analog recordings for some reason sound more dynamic and real because perhaps it is more difficult to manipulate an analog recording in the digital domain. The calculations required would probably be more difficult at least they used to be

I used to have this feeling, but after trying to extend my CD library based on recommended digital recordings, my opinion has changed entirely. You only have to listen to some high-quality digital recordings, e.g. Telarc releases, to realise what sound quality is available from the CD format.

[davetroy]

If only one could consistently rely on a label for the combination of quality performers/quality recording. For classical, I've found that Reference is good. Telarc is good. Testament is mostly good, considering they're releasing old recordings. But companies like DG, Phillips, etc., are very hit or miss.

[Seth=L]

Not all CDs that were copied from a digital master are bad, that isn't what I meant, sorry for any missunderstanding.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=Seth=L]You must realize that CD has it limits.

What would those limitations be? :rolleyes:

Have you tried SACD or DVD-Audio in high resolution 2 channel?

I didn't know you can hear ultrasonic sound:D


Vinyl, for the sake of things, has a wider frequency range than CDs I believe.

If you can capture it on vinyl without burning out the cutters, or able to record the volume level.
The CD will record everything you can hear to 20kHz. Can you hear 20kHz? If not, why worry?

[Seth=L]

What would those limitations be? :rolleyes:

I didn't know you can hear ultrasonic sound:D

If you can capture it on vinyl without burning out the cutters, or able to record the volume level.
The CD will record everything you can hear to 20kHz. Can you hear 20kHz? If not, why worry?
I was making suggestions.

I can hear differences between DVD-audio and CDs in two channel. Is it because of ultrasonics?, no. DVD-Audio is a medium with larger storage allowing for less compression (that being the downfall of CDs, compression). I also think that with so few DVD-Audio and SACD music that they probably take more time and consideration when making them, though it probably wouldn't be much.

Perhaps the statement about LP was not relevant.:D

[MDS]

DVD-Audio is a medium with larger storage allowing for less compression (that being the downfall of CDs, compression).

DVD-A supports higher bitrates and longer word lengths than CD but that is not related to compression. You can compress the crap out of 24/192 just as easily as doing the same to 16/44.1. You just have more samples to muck with in a high resolution format.

[jonnythan]

that being the downfall of CDs, compression
A slower sampling frequency is *not* compression.

[no. 5]

The only thing that I don't understand is why they see that it is fit to compress the dynamics of an audio track.
perhaps, they are doing it to increase DVD-A and SACD sales. ;) :D

[Seth=L]

Perhaps they do it because they are bastards?;)

[Pluck]

Has anybody ever done blind listening tests in which a CD player was compared to, for instance, a turntable? If so, what were the results?
About 10 years ago, I had a different system. Not as good as the one I've got now but still excellent. My 71-year-old mother, distinctly not an audiophile, was at my place and I said, "Ma, I'm going to show you the difference between hearing a record and hearing a CD."

I had (and still have) the analog and digital versions of Ella Fitzgerald's Cole Porter Songbook. Knowing that she loved that music, that's what I used. I made sure that she wouldn't know which was which, and I made no comments about either one. All I said was, "You tell me if you notice any difference." The test took about 10 minutes. She was floored by how much better the vinyl sounded. There was no getting around it.

A good deal of this was the room. I did the test in a pretty spartan, echoey space that wasn't too kind to the exaggerated treble of CDs. When I moved to a different place and did the test with other people in a more audiophile-friendly room, it was a lot harder to tell the difference. My experience is that a good room improves CDs a whole lot more than it improves vinyl.

What the heck is analog sound? I know it's the sound of vinyl records played on a turntable, but what is the supposed audible difference between analog sound and the sound from a CD player?
If it was recorded in analog, vinyl is going to sound warmer and fuller than a CD. Not very precise terms, warmer and fuller, but that's the best I can do. But if the record was recorded digitally or "digitally remastered," it's not going to matter. SACD and DVD audio are a huge improvements over regular CDs, but of course the room, the system and your own ears are going to play big roles.

And if it's an analog recording but a crappy analog recording, well, it's still going to be a crappy analog recording. One of the things about having a truly great system is that it will expose some terrible recordings. The Electric Light Orchestra is unlistenable on a good system. Listening to John Coltrane's My Favorite Things still makes me want to cry these days, but for a different reason.

Is it possible for a CD player to produce this so-called analog sound?
SACD and DVD audio will get very close. But the biggest thing you could do for your ears and your sanity, if you haven't already done so, is to never again play an MP3 recording. At this time, you have a whole generation growing up that doesn't have a clue about what music ought to sound like. It's not their fault. It's what they know. It's Apple's fault, and Apple doesn't care. But now that you know, go kill your MP3s if you have any.

Not only that, but a fair number of them are going deaf because of it. What happens is that they sense something missing in the music. They can't quite put their finger on what's missing, so they turn it up to try to capture the lost quality. You can get an illusion of better sound for a while, but it's not actually any better plus it just destroys your hearing.

Now that we've got much greater digital storage, there's just no excuse in the world for the MP3 format. A 4GB compact flash card costs less than 50 bucks, and it will hold at least five CDs worth of songs. You can already get a 16GB flash card for $235, and they'll be coming down. Soon we'll have 64GB sizes. Players are coming in 30GB and 60GB sizes, and those capacities will go up. It's time to bury MP3 for good. It really ought to be banned as a health risk. It's making people deaf. I'm not joking about that.

[MDS]

Pluck,
You and others you know may prefer the sound from vinyl but nearly everything else you stated is pure nonsense.

My experience is that a good room improves CDs a whole lot more than it improves vinyl.
A good room improves sound. Period.

If it was recorded in analog, vinyl is going to sound warmer and fuller than a CD. Not very precise terms, warmer and fuller, but that's the best I can do. But if the record was recorded digitally or "digitally remastered," it's not going to matter.
IF it was recorded in analog? Of course it was analog, vinyl is an analog medium. Analog vs digital doesn't have anything to do with 'fullness' or 'warmth' of sound. By the way there is no such thing as 'digital' recording. Sound is ANALOG - the analog signal has to be sampled to be converted to digital.


And if it's an analog recording but a crappy analog recording, well, it's still going to be a crappy analog recording. One of the things about having a truly great system is that it will expose some terrible recordings. The Electric Light Orchestra is unlistenable on a good system.
A crappy recording is a crappy recording, regardless of the format of the final medium. ELO sounds great on a low-end computer speaker system and even better on a high-end system. Maybe you just don't like the band?


the biggest thing you could do for your ears and your sanity, if you haven't already done so, is to never again play an MP3 recording. At this time, you have a whole generation growing up that doesn't have a clue about what music ought to sound like. It's not their fault. It's what they know. It's Apple's fault, and Apple doesn't care. But now that you know, go kill your MP3s if you have any.
What does Apple have to do with MP3? Apple didn't invent the MP3 format, Fraunhoffer is the originator and patent holder of the MP3 format. Not to mention the fact that using high bitrates, no 'audiophile' has ever shown that they could conclusively distinguish an MP3 from an uncompressed version.


Not only that, but a fair number of them are going deaf because of it. What happens is that they sense something missing in the music. They can't quite put their finger on what's missing, so they turn it up to try to capture the lost quality. You can get an illusion of better sound for a while, but it's not actually any better plus it just destroys your hearing. It's time to bury MP3 for good. It really ought to be banned as a health risk. It's making people deaf. I'm not joking about that.

If you are not joking, then you are extremely ignorant of the principles of sound and acoustics. MP3 destroys your hearing? LMAO!

Awesome first post, dude! 99% bullsh!t.

[Seth=L]

Wow, look at all the snake oil, what a mess. I can't even walk through this gunk.

[Pluck]

You and others you know may prefer the sound from vinyl but nearly everything else you stated is pure nonsense.
Ultimately it boils down to preference. If someone prefers digital sound then I can't argue with a preference.

IF it was recorded in analog? Of course it was analog
New recordings are almost always digital.

vinyl is an analog medium
Vinyl is an analog playback medium. There are plenty of vinyl records that were recorded digitally, or made from digital re-masters. If it comes from a digital master, no analog playback medium is going to restore it.

Analog vs digital doesn't have anything to do with 'fullness' or 'warmth' of sound. By the way there is no such thing as 'digital' recording. Sound is ANALOG - the analog signal has to be sampled to be converted to digital.
When I wrote "digital recording," I referred to the process of running the analog sound through an analog-to-digital converter. That is done for almost all recordings these days; the analog masters don't exist.

A crappy recording is a crappy recording, regardless of the format of the final medium. ELO sounds great on a low-end computer speaker system and even better on a high-end system. Maybe you just don't like the band?
I liked them until I heard them on a good system, at which point I found them difficult to listen to. It's the a bit like people from past generations who actually prefer the sound of 78 RPM records. To them, bad fidelity is part of the charm. I'm a bit that way myself when it comes to The Beatles. Part of me would rather hear It's A Hard Days Night on a transistor radio, in the car, with the windows open.

What does Apple have to do with MP3? Apple didn't invent the MP3 format, Fraunhoffer is the originator and patent holder of the MP3 format. Not to mention the fact that using high bitrates, no 'audiophile' has ever shown that they could conclusively distinguish an MP3 from an uncompressed version.
I should have been a lot more precise and referred to the highly compressed MP3s that are typical of the genre.

[MDS]

Stick around Pluck and you'll learn the difference between analog and digital and how they are still closely related. You may feel like part of some elite audiophile club bashing digital but trust me, on these forums you better have your technical info straight if you are going to do that and from what I've read so far you don't have any idea.

[Pluck]

Stick around Pluck and you'll learn the difference between analog and digital and how they are still closely related. You may feel like part of some elite audiophile club bashing digital but trust me, on these forums you better have your technical info straight if you are going to do that and from what I've read so far you don't have any idea.
Most of my listening is to digital formats. I'm not a purist, as you seem to believe. You've typecast me. On my current system, it's hard to tell the difference between analog and digital. I still have some room issues to deal with, so I've purposely put the question in abeyance for the current setup until I get those issues resolved.

I also think that digital technologies continue to get better. Many of the first CDs were horrendous, but that's a lot less true now. I am the last person on earth who'd tell someone that they ought to go out and buy a turntable, and until they've done so they haven't really heard music. That's not my gig at all. If and when digital = analog, I'll be happy to say so. Digital has a whole lot to recommend it, especially the convenience.

I wrote what I wrote in response to someone who asked if there's a difference, and what the nature of the difference is. I don't do specsmanship or knobs per dollar. I care about one thing, and one thing only: How it sounds. In most conversations, I tell people that if they spend 300 bucks on a stereo they'll be 85% of the way toward one that costs $100,000. If they spend $1,500 they'll be 95% of the way there.

It's the last 5% that costs the big bucks. That's true of all kinds of things. I didn't spend all the bucks because I'm an analog snob or a stereo snob, etc etc. Other than the speakers and the projector, my A/V equipment sits off in a closet where it can't be seen. People who come over to my house don't get a tour of the stereo. If they're interested, I show it to them. Otherwise, it's not a big deal.

I'm an "audiophile" because I am either blessed or cursed with very acute hearing. I'm the sort of guy who has literally driven five miles to track down a thumping bass beat that annoyed me. I once picked up my car's engine problem 10,000 miles before the mechanic found it. I heard a change in the motor's noise. I have to sleep with earplugs even on a quiet night. I won't listen to music in the background because it annoys me too much. I have to either pay attention to it or shut it off.

Half my family is that way, and the other half could sleep through a war. My mother is in the sleep-through-a-war half, and I was surprised that she was so emphatic that one time. It is what it is, so can we dispense with the morality play here? :rolleyes:

[mtrycrafts]

Awesome first post, dude! 99% bullsh!t.


Better you than me. :D Thanks.

[MDS]

It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with technical accuracy. Regardless of the fact that you believe you and members of your family have super human hearing acuity the fact remains that your 'beliefs' (that is what they are) are inaccurate and easily disprovable.

[mtrycrafts]

..., bad fidelity is part of the charm. .


That applies to all vinyl as well, not just the 78s, don't forget. It doesn't get any exemption.

[Pluck]

It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with technical accuracy. Regardless of the fact that you believe you and members of your family have super human hearing acuity the fact remains that your 'beliefs' (that is what they are) are inaccurate and easily disprovable.
It's more than my belief. My hearing has been tested, and it is very, very actute. It's a point of curiousity for me, because in just about every other respect when it comes to medical kinds of things I am thoroughly average. I just happen to have this ridiculous hearing. I'm glad there's equipment for me. If you can't hear the difference between Kind of Blue on CD and Kind of Blue on vinyl, and if the corrected-speed version of side 1 sounds no different to you than the version that was originally released, more power to you.

You can spend your luxury money on other stuff. Did you happen to notice that Consumer Reports says McDonald's coffee is better than Starbucks coffee? Who's to argue? I bet you are unaware of the fact that 25% of all post-menopausal women have lost their sense of taste. My mother who could tell the difference between the analog and digital versions of Ella Fitzgerald is one of them. When she goes to a fancy restaurant, she does it for the decor and the service. I see nothing wrong with that.

I do kind of wonder why you'd hang out on an audiophile website giving grief to the subset of the subset to whom all of these otherwise inaudible things are audible, but then there's no telling what life brings, huh? Maybe you buy the stereo stuff for the blinking lights and pretty speaker cloth? That's fine, but please don't try to tell me what I can hear and what I cannot hear.

[Seth=L]

It's more than my belief. My hearing has been tested, and it is very, very actute. It's a point of curiousity for me, because in just about every other respect when it comes to medical kinds of things I am thoroughly average. I just happen to have this ridiculous hearing. I'm glad there's equipment for me. If you can't hear the difference between Kind of Blue on CD and Kind of Blue on vinyl, and if the corrected-speed version of side 1 sounds no different to you than the version that was originally released, more power to you. You can spend your luxury money on other stuff.

I do kind of wonder why you'd hang out on an audiophile website giving grief to the subset of the subset to whom all of these otherwise inaudible things are audible, but then there's no telling what life brings, huh?
Oh, sorry didn't realize we were conversing with someone with golden ear. Damn, that thing must be heavy to lug around.:D I am just messing with you, couldn't pass on that.:D

I do think that LP does have an advantage in some cases, not because it is LP, but rather how it was mastered and recorded. You can't expect record companies to always use the same level of quality control when making CD's or LP's, and not only that, but doesn't using Digital masters void the point of LP's anyway?

[Nick250]

Is it me, or does Pluck sound a lot like GreenJelly or whatever the exact name was?

[Pluck]

doesn't using Digital masters void the point of LP's anyway?
A digitally remastered record is a contradiction in terms. Not only that, but vinyl is a royal hassle in a whole lot of ways. I don't have one shred of emotional attachment to it. It's about the sound, and nothing else. I also don't have some class-bound thing about audiophiles. To me, an audiophile is no different than someone who owns a really expensive wheelchair, or maybe someone who's got such a bad back that he's got to sleep on one of those NASA foam mattresses.

The guy who makes my speakers, Richard Vandersteen, has a great attitude about all this stuff. Every instruction manual to his speakers includes a prominent warning about playing them too loud. He's worried about people damaging their hearing. His equipment is designed for cost economy, such that his speakers outperform models costing five and 10 times as much. His quattros go for I think about 7 grand and I recently saw a review that favorably compared them to speakers selling for more than 40 grand.

Anyway, if you guys want to go after an audio snob, pick someone other than me 'cause you've got the wrong target.

[davetroy]

My goodness, what have I started? I didn't mean for this to turn into a pissing match, but I guess it had to, right? That's what happens with these discussions.

By the way, has anybody on this thread spent much time visiting theaudiocritic.com? That might be the most level-headed audio site I've seen. In fact, "level-headed" seems to be the best way to describe those who have come to the conclusion that nothing matters except speakers, room acoustics and the quality of the recording. Although I'm starting to think that one more thing matters: getting the crap that's in an active pre-amp out of the way and going passive or TVC.

I suspect I just started another pissing match. :)

[Pluck]

I think you asked a perfectly reasonable question in a perfectly reasonable way. I sure didn't want to get into a thread like this, and find it stressful, disappointing and ironic. I'm going to have a look at that other site. Thanks for mentioning it.

[MDS]

It's more than my belief. My hearing has been tested, and it is very, very actute.

Who cares? Despite your tested and verfied super hearing, your 'facts' are 100% false. You post misleading and preposterous beliefs (like MP3 causes hearing damage) and then justify them because your hearing tested well?

You don't understand the difference between analog and digital - only that you (and your 71 year mother) 'like' the sound of vinyl. Great, buy records.

I don't particularly care if someone expresses a preference for vinyl over CDs or metal over easy listening or anything else for that matter. What I do find objectionable is those who think because their hearing tested 20 - 20 kHz, that they 'know' their preferences are because analog LPs are superior to digital and make up all kinds of technical sounding but inaccurate reasons for their preference.

I'm not the kind of guy to ask 'which speaker sounds better' but you will have a very hard time debating me on the technical aspects of computer or audio technology. All I care about is the facts, people are free to make their own choices. I will never tell you that you don't hear what you think you hear, but I will tell you when the reasons you give are totally inaccurate. Normally I just let things slide, but you are adamant in your beliefs.

How about we start at the beginning and you tell us all how analog differs from digital and how you send a sequence of zeros and ones over a wire that is an analog medium? [Hint: the word ANALOG plays prominently here].

[Pluck]

Look, I'm not even trying to convince you of anything. If you want to hook up your iPod to a Bose Wave Radio and call it the symphony, hey man, whatever floats your boat.

[Seth=L]

Look, I'm not even trying to convince you of anything. If you want to hook up your iPod to a Bose Wave Radio and call it the symphony, hey man, whatever floats your boat.

I am pretty sure he isn't going to hook an iPod up to a Bose i-dock. We don't have any love for Bose here.:D

There isn't anything wrong with MP3s, if they are done correctly. Some of them suck, sure, but that is just a generalization. I am listening to T.A.T.U. for example and it sounds fine, even though it is a compressed format.

[MDS]

Look, I'm not even trying to convince you of anything. If you want to hook up your iPod to a Bose Wave Radio and call it the symphony, hey man, whatever floats your boat.

Look up the latin phrase 'non sequiter'.

[Seth=L]

Look up the latin phrase 'non sequiter'.

That's 'non sequitur', but the point is seen just as well. Funny for sure.:D

[MDS]

That's 'non sequitur', but the point is seen just as well. Funny for sure.:D
Yes, thanks for the correction. :)

[Pluck]

There isn't anything wrong with MP3s, if they are done correctly. Some of them suck, sure, but that is just a generalization. I am listening to T.A.T.U. for example and it sounds fine, even though it is a compressed format.
I'm glad you like it. Anyway, it's clear that this website's the wrong place for me. The good news is that I found out on the first day. This was quite the ambush. Taught me a good lesson. Next time I think about joining an audiophile website I'm going to have to be sure I don't pick the wrong cult. :cool:

[Seth=L]

ppphh! whatever dude.:rolleyes:

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that you are not welcome here. I had many disagreances when I joined and still do. Don't let a first day be an end-all, that is just silly.

[Pluck]

Part of this was my own fault. I have more questions than answers, and the same Internet that brought me here will help me find an audiophile forum.

[jonnythan]

The guy who makes my speakers, Richard Vandersteen,
I think that line completely embodies everything we need to know about Pluck ;)

[Pluck]

I think that line completely embodies everything we need to know about Pluck ;)
Interesting you should say that, because I'd agree. You in a negative way, me in a positive way. It dawns on me that this site is actually an anti-audiophile site. Guys, you've given me a great story to tell, about how the first audiophile site I found was an anti-audiophile site. It's as if I was looking for Internet porn and wound up at Focus on the Family. :cool:

[tbewick]

A digitally remastered record is a contradiction in terms. Not only that, but vinyl is a royal hassle in a whole lot of ways. I don't have one shred of emotional attachment to it. It's about the sound, and nothing else.

I've referred to this short article several times recently, but here again it seems appropriate:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

This was a test to see whether or not use of a digital audio adapter caused an audible difference from the original, analogue recording.

The need for conducting subjective tests using double-blind conditions is outlined in these two papers:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/ias/papers/Zielinski.pdf
'On Some Biases Encountered in Modern Listening Tests', by Slawomir Zielinski, Institute of Sound Recording, University of Surrey, UK.

http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/audio_art_science.pdf
'Audio – Science in the Service of Art', by. Floyd E. Toole, Vice President Engineering, Harman International.

[jonnythan]

Interesting you should say that, because I'd agree. You in a negative way, me in a positive way. It dawns on me that this site is actually an anti-audiophile site. Guys, you've given me a great story to tell, about how the first audiophile site I found was an anti-audiophile site. It's as if I was looking for Internet porn and wound up at Focus on the Family. :cool:
It dawns on me that your ego is absolutely immense. But whatever floats your boat. If you don't like this site, stop logging on.

[Pluck]

You don't want to accept what I wrote about the test with my mother because it conflicts with your beliefs.

She wasn't the only person I did the test with. I generally don't hang out with audiophiles; most of my friends and relatives are completely unfamiliar with any controversy regarding digital v. analog, and they're the ones I've occasionally tested this on.

It hasn't always worked in favor of analog. There have been times when people said they couldn't tell any difference. I attribute these differences to the rooms. In the one place, every single person preferred analog. The difference was plainly audible. In the other place, only a couple people picked up on any differences. The equipment was the same. Only the room was different.

I can say this much: No one has ever told me they preferred digital to analog. The best digital has ever done in these tests is equal. Analog is still the standard. The other thing I've learned over the years is how important the listening room is.

I should say one other thing. On my system you couldn't tell the difference between analog and digital from, say, snaps and crackles on the records. That's because I did the tests with records that I had treated with LAST record preservative. I've been using that stuff for many years, and between it and a dust brush a vinyl record has no crackling.

I know you still won't accept any of this. So be it. The bottom line is that audio equipment is still just a consumer product. You like what you like.

[Pluck]

It dawns on me that your ego is absolutely immense. But whatever floats your boat. If you don't like this site, stop logging on.
I'll probably stick it out for a while in this one thread.

[davetroy]

I think that line completely embodies everything we need to know about Pluck ;)

Uh, what's wrong with Vandersteen?

Or is it the "the guy who makes my speakers" line that you objected to?

I haven't read a lot of (or any) bad stuff about Vandersteen. Is it out there somewhere?

Pluck, make I suggest that you visit audiogon.com or audioasylum.com? Seriously. Steer clear of theaudiocritic.com unless you want to hear more of the same of what you're hearing here (although in a very readable, entertaining and convincing way).

[Pluck]

davetroy, this morning I found one of the ones you suggested and have registered there. I think it'll be a better place for me. Posting here is like being an evangelical preacher in Afghanistan. And jonnythan, enjoy your Wave radio. Who needs all that expensive, bulky, fraudulent gear when you can have a symphony on your coffee table? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) :cool:

[Pluck]

p.s.: I called Richard Vandersteen "the guy who makes my speakers" because I met him once and liked him quite a bit. That's not why I bought his speakers, by the way. I didn't meet him until I had owned Vandersteens for about 10 years. At this point, I think I've owned just about everything they make other than the Quattros. I've got a pair of Model 1s in my office. Model 2Ce Sigs in the den. Model 5As in the living room, which replaced Model 3A Signatures. Plus all the others listed in my sig.

Obviously, I like Vandersteen speakers a whole lot. I could be the Vandersteen salesman, which I'm sure is another character flaw. :cool:

[MDS]

The reason you get flack for your statements is because you use the same old tired audiophool line of reasoning that most of us have heard for decades:

1). I have superior hearing and that allows me to hear things that mere mortals cannot.

2). My system is more resolving than yours and that is why I can hear things that you cannot.

...and the most prevalent:

3). My wife/girlfriend/significant other/71 year old mother, who doesn't even care about audio, heard it too.

Nobody is saying that you cannot have a preference for one medium over another or one type of music over another but when you resort to making up 'facts' to support your preference you'll be challenged.

[Pluck]

I never made statement #2, but #3 is true. As for #1, well I never floated it as the badge of honor that you think I did. But it's a fact anyway.

[MACCA350]

It's the a bit like people from past generations who actually prefer the sound of 78 RPM records. To them, bad fidelity is part of the charm. I'm a bit that way myself when it comes to The Beatles. Part of me would rather hear It's A Hard Days Night on a transistor radio, in the car, with the windows open.
I think that sums it up:p

I had this argument with a mate of mine, It's pointless arguing because facts are facts and the rest is preference(the problem is people make a link between preference and fact)

I bought a turntable to hear this 'difference', suffice to say the its collecting dust in the shed.

cheers:)

[sleeper]

What an awesome post!:D Soooo much drama!:eek: God, I love this place!:p

Anywhoooo, I thought I'd add my two cents. The term "digital sound" and "analog sound" were mostly predominant during the first few years of the cd's introduction. It was mostly used in reference to the way some cd's sounded in comparison to its vinyl equivilent. Some of the early cd's had a very "harsh" or "unrefined" sound quality to it. Of course, this being 2007, the initial growing pains of the cd format (whether it was poor d-a converters, mastering techniques, transfers, etc...) now makes this comparison a mute point. Ditto with vinyl. It's not just the recording, its also the manufacturing of the products. Some are just plain better than others.

I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a quality vinyl pressing and a quality cd made recently. I said "quality", so don't get on me all about compression and stuff...:rolleyes:

sleeper.

... again, just my two cents... and here's your change.

[Pluck]

I just got done listening to Dylan's I Shall Be Released on vinyl. The version on Greatest Hits Vol. II is analog throughout, and the version on Biograph has been digitally remastered. They are both quite listenable, but the Biograph version has the usual digital artifacts: Exaggerated treble, exaggerated separation, a lack of warmth.

Fortunately, the listening room makes up for most of it. Of course, none of this can be measured so it's not real and I'm faking it. :cool:

[MACCA350]

Anyone use a beanie?
I wear one at work during winter. The difference I hear between vinyl and CD is like wearing the beanie covering my ears(vinyl) and taking it off(CD). It's like things are slightly muffled/warm and the HF are dulled with vinyl.

And before anyone jumps down my throat....no I didn't do blind A/B tests, and I don't really care to do any.....its just how it sounded to me.......and yeah that big round thing with a lid on it is staying in the shed:p

Are you ready to RRRUUUUMMMMBBBLLLLLEEEE?:D

cheers:)

[Pluck]

I did some clicking around, and now I realize just how naive my posting was in the first place. This analog v digital debate is a complete setpiece. I'm reminded of the prison lifers who have come to number their jokes. Anyway, folks, I didn't come here for that debate so I'm going to stop. Frankly, I wish I hadn't posted in the thread because it's got nothing to do with why I'm here. I have other reasons for being here, and I hope I can ask my other questions in other threads without this thing following me around.

[Seth=L]

I did some clicking around, and now I realize just how naive my posting was in the first place. This analog v digital debate is a complete setpiece. I'm reminded of the prison lifers who have come to number their jokes. Anyway, folks, I didn't come here for that debate so I'm going to stop. Frankly, I wish I hadn't posted in the thread because it's got nothing to do with why I'm here. I have other reasons for being here, and I hope I can ask my other questions in other threads without this thing following me around.
There are audiophiles and then there are audiophiles. The first audiophile believes in directional cables, styrofoam lifters for cables, and that no matter the circumstances LP sounds better. The second audiophile uses logic to determine that cables and interconnects do not influence sound and spend their hard earned money buying the pieces of a system that influence the sound.

LP has it's points, but there CDs do as well, and include well mastered MP3s as well. Each format has weakness and strength. Depending on how the masters are handled or the care taken when putting the master on a format each will sound different and some may sound better than the other, but never will it be the same format everytime.

I rest my case here.

PS. the Bose cracks are silly, stop! Nobody here thinks that Bose is a choice system.

[MDS]

I have other reasons for being here, and I hope I can ask my other questions in other threads without this thing following me around.

Of course you can. You survived the trial by fire.

I like the way Seth summed it up: 'There are audiophiles and then there are audiophiles. The first audiophile believes in directional cables, styrofoam lifters for cables, and that no matter the circumstances LP sounds better. The second audiophile uses logic to determine that cables and interconnects do not influence sound and spend their hard earned money buying the pieces of a system that influence the sound.'

Most of us here are the second kind of audiophile.

[Pluck]

I'm going to step away from any of those debates. I have opinions on only a couple of them, and those opinions aren't nearly as strident as they have seemed in this thread. In any case, I have some specific things I wanted to ask on this and a couple other sites. As soon as the administrator here gives me permission to start threads you'll see what I mean. My questions have utterly nothing to do with these setpiece arguments.

[tbewick]

You don't want to accept what I wrote about the test with my mother because it conflicts with your beliefs.

She wasn't the only person I did the test with. I generally don't hang out with audiophiles; most of my friends and relatives are completely unfamiliar with any controversy regarding digital v. analog, and they're the ones I've occasionally tested this on.

It hasn't always worked in favor of analog. There have been times when people said they couldn't tell any difference. I attribute these differences to the rooms. In the one place, every single person preferred analog. The difference was plainly audible. In the other place, only a couple people picked up on any differences. The equipment was the same. Only the room was different.

I can say this much: No one has ever told me they preferred digital to analog. The best digital has ever done in these tests is equal. Analog is still the standard. The other thing I've learned over the years is how important the listening room is.

I know you still won't accept any of this. So be it. The bottom line is that audio equipment is still just a consumer product. You like what you like.

I'm sure everyone accepts your point that analogue systems can sound very good. I think the disagreement is where most of us think that the best digital systems are more transparent than the best analog systems. I take it to be your view to be that the reverse is true?

Transparency is surely the goal of all aspects of the audio chain, from the microphone in the recording studio to the loudspeakers in your own home. I entirely agree that vinyl records can sound better than CD's, but I would attribute this difference to the lower fidelity of the vinyl record, i.e. the vinyl record alters the sound from the artist's original intentions, as presented on the original studio master tape.

I thought that you might be interested in this short description of analogue tape systems from the Britannica:

'At the high-frequency end of the spectrum the weakest link is still the cassette. While many decks can claim a frequency response (+/- 3 dB) to 18000 Hz and a few go to 20000 Hz or slightly beyond, the response measurement in this case is made at a low (-20 dB) signal level. At a 0-dB recording level even premium-quality ferric and chromium dioxide-type cassettes begin to reach tape saturation at about 7 000 Hz; with metal-particle cassettes this high-frequency saturation point is extended nearly an octave higher (14 000 Hz).'

'Studio master tapes can be made with the professional Dolby-A noise-reduction system to approach 80 dB [dynamic range], and the consumer Dolby-C system can raise the measured signal-to-noise figures for cassettes to about 70 or 72 dB. (A different noise-reduction system, dbx, can achieve a dynamic range of nearly 100 dB, but its incompatibility with the widely available Dolby-B and Dolby-C systems has tended to limit its availablity.)'

Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition (1989), Volume 27, 'Sound', page 625.

This compares to a possible TPDF-dithered 93 dB dynamic range of 16 bit digital, and with light noise shaping, the subjective dynamic range can be extended by a further 18 dB. High-quality digital audio recorders typically have a very flat frequency response extending all the way to 20 kHz, and many have a response extending far beyond this. Linear and non-linear errors introduced by analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue conversions can be evaluated by constructing theoretical models of the converter and by conducting experimental tests on the converter itself.

[Pluck]

I'm sure everyone accepts your point that analogue systems can sound very good. I think the disagreement is where most of us think that the best digital systems are more transparent than the best analog systems. I take it to be your view to be that the reverse is true?

Transparency is surely the goal of all aspects of the audio chain, from the microphone in the recording studio to the loudspeakers in your own home. I entirely agree that vinyl records can sound better than CD's, but I would attribute this difference to the lower fidelity of the vinyl record, i.e. the vinyl record alters the sound from the artist's original intentions, as presented on the original studio master tape.

I thought that you might be interested in this short description of analogue tape systems from the Britannica:

'At the high-frequency end of the spectrum the weakest link is still the cassette. While many decks can claim a frequency response (+/- 3 dB) to 18000 Hz and a few go to 20000 Hz or slightly beyond, the response measurement in this case is made at a low (-20 dB) signal level. At a 0-dB recording level even premium-quality ferric and chromium dioxide-type cassettes begin to reach tape saturation at about 7 000 Hz; with metal-particle cassettes this high-frequency saturation point is extended nearly an octave higher (14 000 Hz).'

'Studio master tapes can be made with the professional Dolby-A noise-reduction system to approach 80 dB [dynamic range], and the consumer Dolby-C system can raise the measured signal-to-noise figures for cassettes to about 70 or 72 dB. (A different noise-reduction system, dbx, can achieve a dynamic range of nearly 100 dB, but its incompatibility with the widely available Dolby-B and Dolby-C systems has tended to limit its availablity.)'

Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition (1989), Volume 27, 'Sound', page 625.

This compares to a possible TPDF-dithered 93 dB dynamic range of 16 bit digital, and with light noise shaping, the subjective dynamic range can be extended by a further 18 dB. High-quality digital audio recorders typically have a very flat frequency response extending all the way to 20 kHz, and many have a response extending far beyond this. Linear and non-linear errors introduced by analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue conversions can be evaluated by constructing theoretical models of the converter and by conducting experimental tests on the converter itself.

Well, I never wanted to put myself in the position of arguing that analog is superior to digital. That's for each listener to decide. A more accurate way to say it would be that I think analog is by its nature the reference point. What we're all seeking is accurate reproduction by whatever means possible. As far as specs and theory go, that approach definitely has its uses, yet I view them as adjuncts to my ears. "Fidelity" is an interesting concept. To me, it's not the sum of separation and resolution. When it comes to sound, the only god I bow to is the god of music.

I've never preferred the digital version to the analog version. At times, I have found the digital version indistinguishable from analog, i.e., just as good. That is happening more often as digital improves. To me, any advantages from digital come in the storage and handling of data, i.e., convenience, and those advantages are considerable.

I'm not against digital. Other way around. As it improves, I am finding digital more acceptable. In fact, when once I get past this issue I have about my forum registration being confirmed you'll see from the questions that I'll be asking that I'm anything but an "analog snob." I'm interested in the whole music server concept and have a bunch of questions related to them. If I thought digital was terrible I wouldn't be interested in music servers.

But I still love analog best. So, even as I'm inquiring about digital music servers I might also start a separate quest backwards toward reel-to-reel tape decks to play copies of analog masters. It's not something I've ever explored; I know nothing about it, and therefore maybe it's impractical. I realize how contradictory all of this is, but if there's one thing that'll never change it is my inconsistency. It makes me a sitting duck in any religious war, sort of like the Bahais in Iran. It's a little unnerving at times. :cool:

[allsop4now]

When speaking about audio quality you almost always should be looking at the source of the recording and not so much the medium used. Most music production companies record the master tracks digitally now days. Very few still record analog.

Even fewer open a brand new all-analogue recording studio: http://www.grangestudios.co.uk/

[highfihoney]

To me, an audiophile is no different than someone who owns a really expensive wheelchair

Thats my new slogan:D

[davetroy]

Glad to see we're all getting along. Now can someone please tell me where I can get a good aftermarket power cord for under $1,000? :)

[Seth=L]

Glad to see we're all getting along. Now can someone please tell me where I can get a good aftermarket power cord for under $1,000? :)
Cut the one off the fridge.:D

[mtrycrafts]

Cut the one off the fridge.:D


No, no, not that. You will have a load of spoiled eating:eek:
Maybe that heater, or toaster.:D

[jonnythan]

Cut the one off the fridge.:D
If you do this, unplug the fridge first.

Don't ask me how I know.

[davetroy]

Thanks for your help. I ended up cutting one off the fridge and attaching it to my amp. At first, the sound was a little cold, as expected, but after a little bit of freezer burn-in, the sound warmed up, and now I'd describe it as fresh but lacking punch.

Don't ask me about the feed-back.

[Seth=L]

Thanks for your help. I ended up cutting one off the fridge and attaching it to my amp. At first, the sound was a little cold, as expected, but after a little bit of freezer burn-in, the sound warmed up, and now I'd describe it as fresh but lacking punch.

Don't ask me about the feed-back.
Try the one on the stove, it should heat your sound up.:D I am going to use that.:D

[tubesaregood]

Try the one on the stove, it should heat your sound up.:D I am going to use that.:D

It'll give it a warm "tube" sound.

I would recommend using a washing machine cord. The sound will be very clean and bright - no mud.

[Seth=L]

It'll give it a warm "tube" sound.

I would recommend using a washing machine cord. The sound will be very clean and bright - no mud.
You could use the washing machine for your lows and the dryer for the highs.:D That would even things out in a bi-wire scenario.:D

[no. 5]

Try the one on the stove, it should heat your sound up.:D
use the one off the toster if the one off the stove makes the sound too warm. :D




I use cables made from old stoves to warm the sound up.
I like the changes to the sig, Seth. lol :D

[davetroy]

I just tried the one from my electric razor. Terrible skin effect.

[Seth=L]

I just tried the one from my electric razor. Terrible skin effect.
Nice:D

Thank you No.5 for your support.:D

[obscbyclouds]

ROTFL! This is by far one of the most hillarious threads I've read. Totally made my day, Thanks! ;)

[mtrycrafts]

ROTFL! This is by far one of the most hillarious threads I've read. Totally made my day, Thanks! ;)


Yes, we take time out to have a good time here:D

[no. 5]

Thank you No.5 for your support.:D
(hugely delayed) I do what I can. :D

[Arnold Layne]

Pluck,

It is my opinion that...(place this at the beginning of each paragraph below...please).

While being into this hobby for about 4 years, I have had a similar issue listening to CD's and wondered about the whole analog/digital thing. What dispels this myth in my mind is that I do have some very, very good sounding CD's. Most CD's I own do not sound very good. I listen to them and I fiddle with this and fiddle with that but no matter what:

1.) They do not sound 'right'
2.) They do not sound like I remember them sounding 'back in the day' (turntable).
3.) They hurt my ears.

BUT,

I do have some CD's that sound better than I believe a record or cassette could ever dream of sounding. Hmmm.

TEST,

Take a CD from one of your favorite bands, a greatest hits CD. Make sure there are several different producers on it. Listen to it. You will hear the same differences you hear CD to CD as you will producer to producer.

EXAMPLE #1,

Rush - The spirit of radio - Greatest Hits 1974 - 1987

If you cannot hear a major difference between Terry Brown produced songs and any other producer on this CD you need to get your super-human hearing checked again. Please refrain from attacking my preference in music. Granted, one possibility is the later stuff with different producers was recorded during the CD infancy but MY OPINION is it is the producer (or the source media) that is what is displeasing to my ears.

EXAMPLE #2,

Eagles - Greatest Hits 1971 - 1975

Same thing. Noticeable difference between producers. IN MY OPINION.


Anyone else tried this?

Arnold

[MDS]

EXAMPLE #1,Rush - The spirit of radio - Greatest Hits 1974 - 1987
EXAMPLE #2, Eagles - Greatest Hits 1971 - 1975

You picked two CDs that are at the opposite end of the spectrum for sound quality (I have both).

The Rush CD is a perfect example of over the top compression. It is extremely loud (averages -10 dB) and has no dynamics. I am only a casual Rush fun so I gave away my Retrospective I & II CDs to purchase the single Spirit of Radio CD - BIG MISTAKE.

The Eagles CD is one of the best mastered CDs of all time, regardless of whether you like the music. It is conservatively mastered (average level of -17 dB or so IIRC) and has a large dynamic range.

Comparing two CDs like that shows you the difference in mastering trends over the years but does not provide any useful information for supporting the theory that LP sounds better than CD.

[Pluck]

Analog v digital is one of those religious wars. People who think there's a difference will often pay extra -- a whole lot extra, by the way -- for analog capability. Some fools think there is "status" in analog, which is something I've never understood.

People who don't hear a difference will sometimes get pretty rough on those who like analog. It's easy to do that, because when stating a preference that can't be proven or quantified you open yourself up for all kinds of lampooning. To me, it's a lot like the wine tasting world. You can pay $3 for a bottle of Two-Buck Chuck (which used to be $2, just like Motel 6 charged $6 for a while), and you can pay several hundred dollars for this or that burgundy. And when you try to describe the differences, you become comedic fodder.

Or cigars. I like medium-bodied robustos, and occasionally a torpedo shape. For a smidgen over $1 each in quantities of 20, you can buy Remedio robustos at J.R. Cigars made from Nicaraguan tobacco, and they'll go 85% of the way toward a Cuban Cohiba, Partagas or Bolivar robusto at about $20 each in quantities of 25. You can pay about $4 each in quantities of 25 for Ashton Cabinet bellicosos made of Dominican tobacco, and you're 95% of the way to a Cuban Montecristo #2. But if you want a Cuban cigar you have to pay the full frieght, and there is no Cuban cigar other than a Cuban cigar.

Now are Cuban cigars better? Not all of them, that's for sure. I've been in Canadian tobacco shops and have laughed to see Americans come in and ask for "a Cuban cigar" without knowing the brand or shape; if I ran the store, I'd sell that customer a counterfeit. They'd never know the difference. You have to have a lot of experience to be able to distinguish a Cuban cigar from the rest of them. The differences are subtle, especially when you compare them to the best from the Dominican Republic, which is only 90 miles from Cuba. A new smoker should start on J.R. Robustos. They are very good cigars, and they are a tremendous value.

But at the high-end? It's true, there's nothing like the best Cuban cigars. I've been smoking dog turds since I was 21 years old, which means close to 30 years. I started on machine rolled Garcia y Vega, a buck and a quarter for a box of five. Then I went up the ladder as I came into more money. Now, I can distinguish a Cuban Cohiba, Partagas, Bolivar, Uppman or Montecristo by taste from the non-Cuban versions of the same brands, and from non-Cuban versions of similar cigars, Ashton being the closest to Cuban quality in my opinion. But no test is ever going to prove it, and if I tell you that Cuban cigars have a unique combination of mild flavor and knock-your-head off strength you might laugh. When I smoke cigars I take the ringbands off, and in any case I smoke most cigars by myself so I'm impressing no one.

Back to audio. I tend to prefer analog but not always. There are plenty of recordings where you can't tell the difference, and the system and the room have a whole lot of influence. With respect to the Eagles and Rush, well, all I can say is that the first thing you have to do is pick tolerable music for the comparison.

Incoming!!!! :D

p.s.: If you want to buy Cuban cigars, go to cigarsclub.com. They are located in Spain, which is the European entrepot for Cuban tobacco owing to the former colonial relationship. You specify what you want, and they arrive in a box marked "produce of the Canary Islands." Separately, they mail you an envelope full of ring bands with box seals. I found them a few years ago and ordered a box of Cohibas as a test. When they got here and I smoked them, I knew they were the real thing. Prior to that, I got my Cohibas from a Catholic priest who smuggled them to Chicago and used the proceeds to fund an orphanage in Havana. Or so he said. :)

[no. 5]

People who don't hear a difference will sometimes get pretty rough on those who like analog.

I'll tell you this, I can hear up to around 19kHz and have lightly trained ears, and sometimes will get a weird look for saying I can hear something, but in this forum, you won’t get flack for saying you can hear a deference between two recordings on two deferent formats (when there is a deference to be heard), or even that you prefer one format to another.
You won't get any flack for usually preferring analogue (though you may get some jabs :rolleyes: ).

What a person will get flack for around here is passing opinion off as fact, or passing technically inaccurate theories as fact, inaccurate knowledge wont get you flack, but it will get you a correction (trust me I've been there).

Anyway, I'm glad you chose not to leave us, another persons knowledge and experiences is a benefit to all of us.

[Pluck]

p.p.s: A month or so ago, a friend was in Tampa. There is a cohort of Cuban emigres in Tampa who roll cigars. Knowing my love of cigars, she went to a shop and got a bunch for me. This morning I was smoking one of them and thought, wow, someone in Tampa is importing Cuban tobacco. Turns out that I was smoking this (http://www.cigar.com/cigars/viewcigar.asp?brand=270). For $6.25 in quantities of 20, it gets somewhere between an Ashton and a Montecristo #2, and closer to the Montecristo than to the Ashton.

Not rolled in Tampa. The tobacco is grown in Nicaragua from Cuban seed. If you like Cuban cigars but don't want to pay $15-$20 apiece, this one is an incredible value.

[Arnold Layne]

MDS,

Can you sum up in a few paragraphs a little information on compression? Or direct me to a thread or webpage I can educate myself?

I believe compression to be something that reduces the volume peaks in audio. Where does the compression take place? The original multi track recording, the mastering of the original album? Does it occur again while someone is compiling a greatest hits CD?

was it done to analog during mastering for albums without noticeable impact to the final audio? Or is it strictly something that has negatively impacted digital audio?

I appreciate your input.

[jaxvon]

MDS,

Can you sum up in a few paragraphs a little information on compression? Or direct me to a thread or webpage I can educate myself?

I believe compression to be something that reduces the volume peaks in audio. Where does the compression take place? The original multi track recording, the mastering of the original album? Does it occur again while someone is compiling a greatest hits CD?

was it done to analog during mastering for albums without noticeable impact to the final audio? Or is it strictly something that has negatively impacted digital audio?

I appreciate your input.

Compression takes place during both multitrack mixing and mastering. You are correct that it reduces the peaks, in that once a threshold is set, the compressor reduces the levels above the threshold. How quickly it attacks the peak can vary, as well as how much it compresses the sound. Compression is often found drums, most often on the kick drum and snare. It is also used on vocals to "bring them up in the mix". The reason this works is that the compression reduces the dynamic range of a track, thereby allowing the sound to be raised in level without making the peaks go above 0dB. Compression used in mastering is applied to the entire mix. The problem is today that compression is overused to the point of abuse. Listen to an older album like Donald Fagen's The Nightfly. The average level is fairly quiet, but many of the sounds are quite dynamic, as is the material found on his Kamakiriad album. The last album in Fagen's trio, Morph the Cat, is a world apart. The vocals and bass are horribly compressed, lending an unnatural sound. Another new album that features a disgusting amount of compression that was applied at mastering is Nelly Furtado's Loose. You can hear the way certain dynamic sounds trigger a very hard compression, creating a 'pumping' sound and huge distortion as the limiter hits maximum. This is most apparent on track 8.

In conclusion, compression can be a good thing, when used properly. It's just that most modern music and remasters are over-compressed, destroying the original dynamics and natural sound of an album. If you would like to experience some modern music that is dynamic (as in not over-compressed), check out these albums:

Ani DiFranco - Knuckle Down
Ani DiFranco - Reprieve
Scott Gwinell Jazz Orchestra - Basement Vibes (available here (http://cdbaby.com/cd/sgjo))

[MACCA350]

MDS,

Can you sum up in a few paragraphs a little information on compression? Or direct me to a thread or webpage I can educate myself?
Illustrations can be found here (http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28993)

cheers:)