Analog sound: Real or myth?

[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.

 

[MDS]

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

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.

 

[Seth=L]

ppphh! whatever dude.

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.

 

[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.

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.)

 

[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.

 

[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

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]

Wow!

What an awesome post! Soooo much drama! God, I love this place!

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...

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.