Vinyl and seperates

WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
MacManNM said:
Why would the industry, money based, decide to put more money into equipment ( The faster the digitizer the more $$$$) if it wasn't a vast improvement over the former?
Why would tens of thousands of people swear that psychics are the real deal, and even pay them? (It's retorical -- so you don't have to actually answer.)

Answer your own question -- as your own answers appear to be the only ones that satisfy you(even when usually being inane).

-Chris
 
MacManNM

MacManNM

Banned
WmAx said:
Why would tens of thousands of people swear that psychics are the real deal, and even pay them? (It's retorical -- so you don't have to actually answer.)

Answer your own question -- as your own answers appear to be the only ones that satisfy you(even when usually being inane).

-Chris
Aren't those same people who said cd was perfect, in your audibility tests 5-20 years ago? Aren't they now saying that DVD audio is superior? Or is that a different set of test subjects?
 
Last edited:
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
MacManNM said:
Aren't those same people who said cd was perfect, in your audibility tests 5-20 years ago, now saying that DVD audio is superior? Or is that a different set of test subjects?
Tell you what -- when you can substantiate your claims or answer questions intelligently, or even ask an intelligent question(within a logical scope to the subject at hand) -- then I'll reply again on this thread to you. Until that occurs -- I will not reply to you again within this thread.

The last word is yours -- have at it.

-Chris
 
MacManNM

MacManNM

Banned
WmAx said:
Tell you what -- when you can substantiate your claims or answer questions intelligently, or even ask an intelligent question(within a logical scope to the subject at hand) -- then I'll reply again on this thread to you. Until that occurs -- I will not reply to you again within this thread.

The last word is yours -- have at it.

-Chris
My grammar was wrong in that last post, sorry. The fact is, when I said analog was superior to digital, you gave reasons it wasn’t. Now, I find out that DVD audio is doing exactly what I said should be done (I.E. increase sample rate) and you have a beef with that. So I guess you are going to run out and buy a SME Model 10 turntable, and say how superior analog is? Or will you go get a Denon DCM 380 CD player and hold on to your beloved cd’s? Chances are you’ll have an audio DVD in the next couple of years, screaming how great it is. Because of the sample rate.
 
Last edited:
R

Rotarhead69

Enthusiast
mtrycrafts said:
As long as it is only about enjoyment, absolutely no one cares. :D

But, at times, people make testable claims of dubious merit and credibility. That needs to be challenged :)
I can agree with that. I've been rereading this thread - more for enjoyment than anything else - and I don't understand most of the very technical info - and there seems there is ALOT from both camps, and that’s ok, but to me it all seem a little silly (not in the "this is a joke" way, but in the "neither of the camps will ever win their argument" kind of way).

Since this thread started the other day I've been contemplating the arguments. I've been interested in this subject for many years but lack the expertise to fully understand either camp and discuss it from a technical standpoint. But that doesn't mean my view should be any less on audio equipment when it comes to "what sounds better". In the end this is what your arguments should boil down to. Not which one has more info, not which one is recorded better, not any other real bit of techno fact at all. You may say "Hey, but its these things that make up why piece "A" sounds better than "B". While this is true in “micro” sense of the arguments it is not in the “macro” (or large scale) sense of the argument. I say it assuming we are not dealing with junk equipment and each piece of equipment represents a good sample (not the best - b/c VERY veiw could afford the best, but a good piece).

Let me try to explain my rambling: in the end BOTH digital and analog are compressing the music. On does it by converting a real sound into 0's and 1's and then unconverts its in time and space so you can hear it. A record does it by taking a waveform and etching it into vinyl - its compressing all that sound into a jagged little line. The spinning of the record with the stylus extracts the information and converts it into sound.

Both are compressions of sound in larger sense. Both take a live performance and convert it into a system so the sound of the performance can be extracted in your room later. HOWEVER, neither system captures the real performance. . .

One: every live performance is different every time it is played, wether or not is played in the same room, hall, whatever its never the same way twice, that being said . . .

Two: every listening room is acoustically different so if you could tote around your equipment from room to room sometimes it would sound great and others maybe not so good.

What this means is, you can argue about the fine points all you want, they are not that significant in the big scheme of things. In the end when you put the music on, does it make you feel you are there (mind you, you will be there in your own personal shown in your particular room, but you should feel if you are there.)

So what to do - LISTEN, and listen allot. That’s all that will be required to know which camp you think is for you. You will need to do an A/B test and it WILL be subjective. But music is art and art IS subjective. The equipment just lets you hear it. It is just a means to an end. It doesn’t matter how technically accurate it is, if it sounds great - it is. Its just that simple.

Mind you I am not getting into which media is more convenient, we are discussing which sounds better. You don’t need to be a technician or scientist to appreciate that.

AND ALL OF THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. However wrong it may be.:)
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
MacManNM said:
My grammar was wrong in that last post, sorry. The fact is, when I said analog was superior to digital, you gave reasons it wasn’t. Now, I find out that DVD audio is doing exactly what I said should be done (I.E. increase sample rate) and you have a beef with that. So I guess you are going to run out and buy a SME Model 10 turntable, and say how superior analog is? Or will you go get a Denon DCM 380 CD player and hold on to your beloved cd’s? Chances are you’ll have an audio DVD in the next couple of years, screaming how great it is. Because of the sample rate.

No, what he will most likely say is that the higher sampling of DVD A is beyond your hearing accuity to iterpret or differentiate. After all, your hearing is finite and its capability is pretty well known by the real audio designers.
 
G

guess88

Junior Audioholic
all of you need to ****ing stop and actually listen to some bands in person. I still find it perplexing how many people criticize audio to the very core, and yet haven't even heard what the TRUE source sounds like in person. It's like a bunch of virgins debating how close different ways of masterbating is to sex, when they haven't even touched a girl yet.
 
M

MBauer

Audioholic
Accurate Timepiece

MacManNM said:
I dont own a rolex, but I'm sure there would be a significant delta there. Thats why they're called the most accurate timepiece in the world, but this forum is about audio not time. Although it does take time to discuss audio. Far out.
Sorry couldn't resist. Mechanical watches are a fashion accessory today, not nearly as accurate as today's quartz watches. I have both types and the inexpensive watches keep better time, don't look as good. Rolex's are not even considered to be the best or most accurate of the mechanical watches.

Most accurate timepieces, I would speculate the cesium clocks in use at various observatories; NIST, USNO, Greenwich, etc. Although they are not very portable, maybe they could be used as pocket watches?

As to digital vs vinyl, multi-channel vs two channel, its religion not science. Also a matter of personal taste. Will a really high quality buggy whip make your horse run faster than a willow switch? It might, but most of us drive cars
 
Shadow_Ferret

Shadow_Ferret

Audioholic Chief
guess88 said:
all of you need to ****ing stop and actually listen to some bands in person. I still find it perplexing how many people criticize audio to the very core, and yet haven't even heard what the TRUE source sounds like in person. It's like a bunch of virgins debating how close different ways of masterbating is to sex, when they haven't even touched a girl yet.
Oddly enough, how is most music produced? Through speakers. Even live music comes from the speakers. No one has ever heard what an electric guitar sounds like except through speakers. So if one group uses Marshalls that will sound different from another group that uses Laney or Peavy.

Hmm. I'm not sure what my point was... ;)
 
MacManNM

MacManNM

Banned
mtrycrafts said:
No, what he will most likely say is that the higher sampling of DVD A is beyond your hearing accuity to iterpret or differentiate. After all, your hearing is finite and its capability is pretty well known by the real audio designers.

Please refer to nyquist and analog filter posts earlier.
 
G

guess88

Junior Audioholic
Shadow_Ferret said:
Oddly enough, how is most music produced? Through speakers. Even live music comes from the speakers. No one has ever heard what an electric guitar sounds like except through speakers. So if one group uses Marshalls that will sound different from another group that uses Laney or Peavy.

Hmm. I'm not sure what my point was... ;)

True when you go amplified, but you also gotta consider woodwinds and percussions, organ, piano, and there's still a whole plethora of strings that aren't amplified.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
MacManNM said:
Please refer to nyquist and analog filter posts earlier.

Oh? And that will make you hear higher sampling rates any better? Ultrasonics maybe???
Of course it will not. Your hearing is limited no matter how hard you are trying it not to be.
 
M

mustang_steve

Senior Audioholic
Here's the botom line: analog has an issue called finite durability. Since there is physical contact with the media, the media wears down. It's pretty much safe to say that the first time a record is played will be the best sound quality, and every playback from that point on will be less accurate than before.

The other side is tube amps do sound good, but solid state can sound just as good. The main difference is when they are drivern to clipping, the tube gear does it with far more grace than the solid state.

2-channel versus multichannel....no argument that a proper multichannel wins.

Now, about digital media quality....given there is some ways it's worse, namely no mater how well you sample, teh waveform will be off....BUT, you do get superior dynamic range, as well as the recording itself is accurate tone-wise (records, by nature need equalization to sound right, this is done in the phono preamps, it's called RIAA equalization).

Both media has it's flaws, and it's advantages.

As far as calling modern receivers computers....my actual desktop PC has 106Db dynamic range from it's analog outs, as well as some very nice sound, oh and DVD-A playback :)

Digital media may not be perfect, but it's trying to get there, and that's what matters. The main advantage is if you take care of the disc, some 20 years later it will sound just as good as when you took the shrinkwrap off of it.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top