| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Didital Things » Analog vs. Digital... without BS. (23 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 2 (23 items) Select Pages:  1 2 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A CD off tune? The Big CD Conspiracy theory?..  Low cost re-issues...  Didital Things  Forum     9  59514  08-25-2009
  »  New  The High Resolution PCM files business, where?..  Really bad...  Didital Things  Forum     31  141265  09-29-2009
  »  New  A need for Resolution /Sampling Assessment Test..  Well, we kind of 'have' a file Virginity Assessment Tes...  Didital Things  Forum     1  17453  10-06-2009
  »  New  Zanden 2500S CD player + some general attitude comments..  The hard-reading vs. soft-reading...  Didital Things  Forum     4  39874  11-03-2009
  »  New  The Andrew Rose’s “Pristine Audio” and the XR Mastering..  Paying le mortgage...  Didital Things  Forum     1  18720  11-24-2009
  »  New  To buy an SACD Player?..  Cheap sacd players...  Didital Things  Forum     7  33398  04-02-2012
  »  New  The commercial music servers...  Touch screen remote...  Didital Things  Forum     37  231936  01-10-2008
04-15-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 10233
Reply to: 10233
Analog vs. Digital... without BS.
fiogf49gjkf0d

The title of this thread would appear laughable for anyone who practices audio more than a week. This is as beaten subject as Tubes vs. SS or Mosfet vs. Bipoloar. However, with all my awareness about the popular Analog vs. Digital debate I with astonishment would note one absolutely ridicules moment:  the true Analog vs. Digital conversation and the objective observation about the Analog vs. Digital rivalry never took place, it least I never heard or read about it. Let me to explain.

We are very much accustom to a superficial hoodlums running more or less capable analog and digital setups and claim superiority of one or another  format, mostly everyone are in a favor of analog.  The LPs are better than 44/16 CD, the 15ips ¼” tape is better than the stupid SACD, the 30ips 1” tape is better than Pontius Pilate revised his judgment… The list of the absurdities might be going on but there is a very fundamental mistake that all of trios people make and this mistake absolutely disqualifiers the judgments of those “experts”.

Before I go on and post my observation to the subject I would propose whoever wishes to guess where the disqualification and confusion lies.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
04-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 2
Post ID: 10239
Reply to: 10233
Digital vs Analog?
fiogf49gjkf0d
I like to know is there any idea in romy mind about proper digital implementation ?
do you think we can replace analog with proper implemented digital without lossing any important thing?

but about my idea :
I think digital at it's best can give us transparent, smooth, easy and no attention to itself sound but it can not carry low level information that emotionally connect us to music.
I don't say digital is not emotional (as emotionality is relative to many other things) but digital will reduce emotionality of sound.
as romy say we have 7 listening level i think digital give us good result in first level but it can not be as good as tape in other levels.

maybe i need to listen to digital in a better condition but i really believe digital can not be equal in analog even with proper implementation.



04-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
eduardo
Posts 9
Joined on 04-17-2009

Post #: 3
Post ID: 10242
Reply to: 10233
Philosophical confusion
fiogf49gjkf0d

philosophical confusion


Undoubtly,analog and digital are mere "medium" in the world of "contents and intentions" music is made of. Talking philosophically, If we dare
to discuss or give credit in any way to such a dilemma,we stay in fact out of the place where  music itself works and then we are outside the
audio practice that makes  sense only as something DEEPLY related  to music.That´s the important thing  . Moreover, "audio practice" is a medium,
not to mention how a "medium to the medium" analog or digital is. There´s nothing more than that.If you put it on the table  , you are 
confusing things and playing the wrong game. 

-autodiscualification

Whoever audio leader (or anybody else) supports,discuss or gives credit today to any analog vs digital dilemma  in audio (equally to any different kinds of dilemmas or Themes the world of hifi supported through decades)  demostrates one or more of the following :

.-short practice in audio
.-wrong  or undeveloped musical tastes
.-ignorance of the  issues relatives to generation of audio as communication between human beings (composer-musician-listener)
.-disability of understanding of any complex intelectual and/or spiritual issue the humans had developed trough history
.-incapacity of discerning the tools-from-the objectives that supports developement of any human discipline or intelectual activity
.-luck of any serious capability to dive under superficiality of things
.-corrupted or low  ethical personal evolution 
.-low analitical and rational skills
.-low degree of spontaneus or "mentally open" responses to any external complex interactions

I would say that such a thing like the  mentioned dilemma  reflects precisely and sinthetically every disease,prejudice,snobism and
absurdity  the world of audio ( or the so called world of hifi) supports and promote based on the inability to discriminate by the community of "customers".
True that "customers" would need to be guided trhough the path of audio  as  audiodiscipline  is complex  and needs high grade of
sensibility (the most difficult to develop it seems ) and rational skills .

I couldn,t say who of every audio dealer / leader  reaches any high degree on things that really  matters .

Regards
Edu

04-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 4
Post ID: 10243
Reply to: 10242
BS about analog vs. digital
fiogf49gjkf0d

Actually, Eduardo, I disagree.  

Although I do concur with many of your proposals but I insist that the mistakes that people make in their analog vs. digital thinking are purely methodological and those mistakes that disqualify their conclusions are very far from philosophical confusions. The key in what I imply is not the word “autodiscualification” and I do insist that I do not play wrong game. I think what I lay the cards on the table it will be more obvious. In fact in one way or other I have written about it within my site. Before I explain my position here is the typical what I call “BS about analog vs. digital” from MTV 1993

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7227_ndqQ

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
04-17-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
manisandher
London
Posts 156
Joined on 09-05-2008

Post #: 5
Post ID: 10244
Reply to: 10243
Digital prevalence in recording studios
fiogf49gjkf0d
I've often wondered how many LPs since the 80s were recorded and mixed digitally. When poeple use such LPs to prove the superiority of analogue over digital, I think they're missing the point.

Mani.
04-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
eduardo
Posts 9
Joined on 04-17-2009

Post #: 6
Post ID: 10255
Reply to: 10243
Of course it is methodologically wrong
fiogf49gjkf0d

Romy,i Would state that any  digital vs analog discussion  must take place only in context of recording  of musical material, not within the world of music reproduction itself.

 be it analog tape or computer media,raw recordings (let´s call it "master sound"), obtained trough  a given setup  of  quality microphones,and managed by good recording engineer  implies the higher "inner quality" or say "potential raw sounds-content-quality" you can get in a given moment. But such a context is different game than sound reproduction althoug obviously related to.


You only have to listen to  master materials maybe trough the machines that recorded the events, to realize that the mentioned "inner potential raw sounds-content quality"  you can get (say 1/4 analog tape, 24/88 file or whatever) would  be enough (as a starting point) in context of any given playback system .Yes, you can discuss sound quality of those recordings but never in the sense of being better for the sake of digital or analog, but in the sense of being better or worse as a "recording by itself" or say as a recording in its "technical quality" , "resolution level", "dynamic range" etc.

I´ve found that even relatively low resolution digital recordings  being original raw material are better than higher resolution ones (may be wrongly processed afterwards).So Even here the dilemma seems to be relatively unimportant as "sound quality problem", being more like "technical quality problem".

About digital vs analog thinking (within the context of playback and "audioreviewing"), it occurs then in the wrong place,  trough hifi setups and people whose level of
 methodology derives from  corrupted relationships within the highend industry , sound obtained from all of this crap. Then add the source material ,say "test cd from nowherehifisound" containing a given "style of music" .Add again The higher level of intelectual superficiality and see if analog is better than digital or viceversa .....¡Please let us be serious¡.


So in the end , the analog vs digital dilemma becomes metodollogically wrong (within the world of music reproduction) in the very moment it takes place, as it belongs if actually exist,to the world of recording media, studio and music production  etc. ¿ Would anybody serious enough  even think or talk about analog or digital "sound" in context of designing , building or even listening his playback system? It would be a joke.

Moreover I would say it falls into the most rooted, superficial style within  audiophile world,together with the technological snobism and may be the  improper design  nonsense that you can see everywhere.


Regards

Eduardo
04-20-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 7
Post ID: 10267
Reply to: 10255
Digital philosophy
fiogf49gjkf0d
in my idea philosophy of converting analog to digital is like philosophy of modern art like cubism. dividing structure to it's elements and working on elements then constructing new structure from new elements.

I think digital for it's wrong approach can not be good idea and i think we loss beauty of sound if we divide a whole to it's elements and reconstruct the whole after dividing.

bad result of digital processing can be view from this window.

excuse me for bad english

04-20-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 8
Post ID: 10268
Reply to: 10267
Digitalization is natural
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Amir wrote:
dividing structure to it's elements and working on elements then constructing new structure from new elements.
First of all, I agree!
I would add this however.
For any natural continuous process like sound, when we perceive it, it is with the firing of a synapse, a nerve, and this all occurs discretely rather than continuously.  Our brain processes the information to reconstruct the illusion of continuity.  
The first key would be that the digital reproduction be of a high enough sample rate to fall below the threshold of perception. The scond would be, in my mind, that the process of reproduction not create a new structure, but reproduce the old one.
Adrian
04-20-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 9
Post ID: 10269
Reply to: 10268
Integration in complex structure
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
 
The first key would be that the digital reproduction be of a high enough sample rate to fall below the threshold of perception. The scond would be, in my mind, that the process of reproduction not create a new structure, but reproduce the old one.
Adrian


Thanks drdna,
I should say i can not agree. I think when we divide we never could rebuild it like old. after A/D and D/A we have new structure that is not like first analog.
many things about our brain and awarness is not known in objective view and we should think subjective about our world.
I think your idea refer to reciever (human brain) and my idea refer to message (sound) and i say message should not be divided though  our brain use this method.
I think our brain method could not be related to sound though i'm not sure about it.
in my experience digital (when properly implemented) could be perfect for many audiophiles but i think it can not give analog result in long listening term.

nature is so complex but it is integrated and cohesive , we should deign structures (like audio design) with moving to integration.
digital resolution give us no integration in micro scale.

I think minimalist good results in audio design can be view with this window.

04-20-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,148
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 10
Post ID: 10270
Reply to: 10269
Training the System; Training the Listener
fiogf49gjkf0d
Amir, I agree with you wholeheartedly, on a philosophical level, and this in turn underpins my overview of life, art, etc.

But, in practical terms, the fractioning off of any "event" is certain, once we try to "reconstruct" that event.

Basically, any and every event is an original.  So it essentially becomes a matter of doing our best to try to package an event for the "future" that we will at some point try to relate to in some "Future Now".  How does this work, at all?

Whereas I am incliined to dismiss digital at the conceptual/technical level, it turns out that I have, somehow, gotten good musical experiences via digital.

Who can say if this this is due to "lowered expectations", re-conditioning my brain, or...?

I happen to use almost exclusively LPs as source, and I would most certainly use 30 ips master tapes, if I could, based on my perception of sound quality, per se.

But I can't rule out the possibility that I might at some point hear digital sources that work just as well as 30 ips tape for me, whether those from "closer to the source", or just something that happens to click.  I mean, I could not rule thius out, based on experience.

Best regards,
Paul S
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
manisandher
London
Posts 156
Joined on 09-05-2008

Post #: 11
Post ID: 10273
Reply to: 10270
Are 'modern' LPs truely analogue?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Paul S wrote:

I happen to use almost exclusively LPs as source...


Paul, and how many of these LPs do you estimate have been recorded, mixed or been through some sort of digital processing?

It seems to me that we are not aware of so much that goes on along the chain. E.g. when it was released, 'In Nature's Realm' by Water Lily Acoustics (WLA-WS-66-CD) was apparently the first coincident-miked, all-tube analogue recording of a major symphony orchestra in over 20 years. So how were all the thousands of others recorded in this 20 year period?

How many digitally-critical die-hard analoguers are listening to digitally recorded LPs... and then waxing lyrical about the superiority of analogue?

Mani.
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 12
Post ID: 10274
Reply to: 10270
Digital
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Paul S wrote:
Amir, I agree with you wholeheartedly, on a philosophical level, and this in turn underpins my overview of life, art, etc.

But, in practical terms, the fractioning off of any "event" is certain, once we try to "reconstruct" that event.

Basically, any and every event is an original.  So it essentially becomes a matter of doing our best to try to package an event for the "future" that we will at some point try to relate to in some "Future Now".  How does this work, at all?

Whereas I am incliined to dismiss digital at the conceptual/technical level, it turns out that I have, somehow, gotten good musical experiences via digital.

Who can say if this this is due to "lowered expectations", re-conditioning my brain, or...?

I happen to use almost exclusively LPs as source, and I would most certainly use 30 ips master tapes, if I could, based on my perception of sound quality, per se.

But I can't rule out the possibility that I might at some point hear digital sources that work just as well as 30 ips tape for me, whether those from "closer to the source", or just something that happens to click.  I mean, I could not rule thius out, based on experience.

Best regards,
Paul S


Thanks Paul S, excuse me if i can not explain my idea with english language Smile

I agree that our brain can filter some errors and let us to enjoy music with digital. I agree your comment about "lowered expectations".

I think emotionally involving is dependent to music (message) and listener brain (reciever) and audio role in musicality should be view from another window (as romy say audio is seprated from musicality in his article in "http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Playback/MyPlayback.aspx").

I just say digital (with my little experience) approach is wrong (like finding truth with science that divide the world to it's elements) and history of audio say me (as history of science tell me science could not find absolute truth) digital is not a good idea because it divide a whole to elements and with no human sense construct it again.

Amir


 
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 13
Post ID: 10275
Reply to: 10273
LP after digital processing
fiogf49gjkf0d
 manisandher wrote:

How many digitally-critical die-hard analoguers are listening to digitally recorded LPs... and then waxing lyrical about the superiority of analogue?


manisandher, I disagree
maybe at first impresion we say LP (LP after digital processing) is good but in my idea in long listening term we can undrestand difference of them.
in my view, as many audiophiles have no idea about musicality, so many sound engineers in studios are like same audiophiles.

I saw a sound engineer and his view about musicality was like a beginner audiophile that has no idea about beauty.

04-21-2009 Post mapped to one branch of Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 14
Post ID: 10276
Reply to: 10233
My view over Analog vs. Digital... without BS.
fiogf49gjkf0d
As I said: most debates on the subject that I ever heard so far are not accurate representation of Analog vs. Digital dilemma.  The same as the discussion in this thread about the “natural continuous process”, the “discrete process” and the “brain reconstruction illusion” is in a way missing the whole point of Analog vs. Digital. Why do I feel that the typical Analog vs. Digital observations are self-disqualifiable? Because observing Analog and observing digital we in 99999.99% cases observe apple and oranges and try to compare them. Let me to explain.

When people play analog they play what they play. Would it be a master tape, or 63647th copy of that tape or analog-mastered LP or heavily “mastered” surrogate of it – on all cases we play analog material. It is good or bad but the best expels of it give an idea what analog is capable of.
With digital it is a bit tricky. If you have an A/D converter and you possess the love sound of analog material then we have a digital material that might be sensible compared with analog. However, the result of direct conversion of analog into digital is practically NEVER exposed to audio people. The audio people who love to run mouths about Analog vs. Digital do it by playing commercial CD, SACD, DVD or whatever else, with recognizing that in digital they are in the very end of very long receiving line of all imaginable digital nastiness and what they have is in fact not “digital” and it could be by the definition of class but rather an ugly surrogate of industry digital diarrhea.

Digital and analog are different by nature. It is not about descritization but about the fact that improperly “mastered” analog make sound worse but do not loose subconscious  spiritual affect of musicality, recognized at higher level of musical perception. (link). With Digital is it different.  In contrary, the corrupted digital tears the core of musical expressivity, making sound unfertile and not communicative. Beyond all of it there is the absolutely ridicules fact that industry embrace digital primary because the industry needed to manage the digital corruption or as they call it the “digital editing”.

The said truth is that analog is editable but digital is not. The rule of the game is the analog can’t delay but only filter but digital can’t filter but only delay. That fundamental disability of digital to filter (and consequential change of volume), as any slope introduced in digital implies tossing away bits, is the source of all problems with digital. The raw files that were taken right after A/D processor are the ONLY true digital but audio people practically never see those files. But if file was ever exposed to any, even the .025dB, volume change, any filtration of any other actions that implies DSP pressing then the files are already not “digital” but wasted surrogate. So, any “edited” file, a file with bit-rate change, a sampling rate change, a format change are not the representative of what digital is all bout but rather the evidence how much possible to screw up digital without recognizing it.

So, when audio people play their analog sources and “compare” it to CDs, DVDs or SACDs and they feel that they compare it to “digital” then they are engaged in a self-delusion. Practically all CDs are severely edited digitally.  Furthermore when even a raw digital file is rendered into CD layout then digital is losing 90% of own potency. The same is with DVD. I played the raw 96/24 files and they are fine but as soon I put them in DVD format then it become to sound like garbage. I do not even talk about the SACD.  Before Sony and Phillips were running from their ending in 2003 their 30 years patent over Red Book CD, they requested a development a new format to continue to have market control.  Ed Meitner was recruited and he designed a brilliant 4-bit format that he called DSD. I was in presence during a listening session where the untouched just recorded row 4-bit DSD files were played right off the HD where were recorded. It was absolutely stunning. Of course later the superb 4-bit DSD become simplified and insufficient 1-bit SACD that the Morons still call DSD… The fact that that most SACD is edited in PCM and then converted is not one bothered…

Anyhow, the point is that audio people do not deal with original raw digital file therefore their comments about Analog vs. Digital are not relevant as they do not see the true digital but rather a digital crap. Ironic is that the only people who qualified to make the argument about Analog vs. Digital are the pro audio flaks who deal with raw files juts after the A/D processors. Over all my time in audio I heard very view people who ever spoke about the subject credibly from my point of view. The all were audio engineers who deal with raw files. I have seen people who refuse to do 88kHz to 44kHz conversion but instead they D/A 88kHz files and then A/D the feed to 44kHz as they feel that it has less damage to Sound then DSP 88kHz to 44kHz. I have seen people who feel that raw 172/24 files from a good processor are not better or worse than 15ips, 1” tape but sufficient enough to do compare Analog vs. Digital anymore. I made in past some demos of playing raw HDCD encoder files that I made with Pacific and I assure you that no one in would believe that they were crapy 44/16 files.  Now, try to make ANY change in those file sor put it to CD and the “magic” will be gone…

So, to summarize the thing:  the Analog vs. Digital debate by audio consumes, is a bogus debate because in the culture of audio and musical industry the consumers have no dealing with “Digital”. Instead they deal with a residue of a long line of Digital barbarism and therefore the contest between Analog vs. Digital Surrogate is not reasonable, thus self-disqualifying.

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
manisandher
London
Posts 156
Joined on 09-05-2008

Post #: 15
Post ID: 10277
Reply to: 10276
Nice rule.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The rule of the game is the analog can’t delay but only filter but digital can’t filter but only delay.

A few years ago, I looked into replacing my analogue crossovers with digital ones - I wanted to try steeper than 1st order slopes and eliminate a peak at 100Hz. I tried a DEXQ unit and hated it. I then tried a PC X-over and hated that too. Unsurprisingly, I still use analogue x-overs.

Romy, does your 'theory' suggest that a DAC needs to be NOS... as we shouldn't filter in the digital domain?

Mani.
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
manisandher
London
Posts 156
Joined on 09-05-2008

Post #: 16
Post ID: 10278
Reply to: 10275
I'm sure you're right
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Amir wrote:
... in my idea in long listening term we can undrestand difference of them.


I've no doubt that you can tell when an LP has been digitally edited... I suppose for the reasons that Romy sites above. What I would like to know is how many LPs are 'pure' analogue. My suspicion is very few since the early 1980s... but I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

It just seems to me that some people feel that they can correct the 'digital diarrhoea' earlier in the chain... usually by using vinyl and/or tubes. I find this simply ridiculous.

Mani.
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 17
Post ID: 10279
Reply to: 10276
Digital
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
However, the result of direct conversion of analog into digital is practically NEVER exposed to audio people.

I never heard direct conversion of analog to digital and i should agree that i can not be sure that digital is so wrong.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Digital and analog are different by nature. It is not about descritization but about the fact that improperly “mastered” analog make sound worse but do not loose subconscious  spiritual affect of musicality, recognized at higher level of musical perception. (link). With Digital is it different.  In contrary, the corrupted digital tears the core of musical expressivity, making sound unfertile and not communicative. Beyond all of it there is the absolutely ridicules fact that industry embrace digital primary because the industry needed to manage the digital corruption or as they call it the “digital editing”.

100% agree and one of my reason that indicate digital is a wrong approach is that digital is very sensitive to the road (from record in studio to play in our home) that music come to our rooms. as you mentioned analog even in very bad state don't destroy core of musicality.
one of the things that make me doubtful about industry is that when we do not satisfy and digital error make music harmful all audiophile (99%) make decision to upgrade their components and in each upgrade listener just  have better sense in first level listening and after some month listener felt he miss one thing.
digital destroy the soul and audiophiles try to make it right with wrong upgrades and buying expensive components.
in my idea when error scale (most in higher listening levels) is large, each upgrade make the illusion that new sound is so better. wrong loop (upgrade) make the life hell.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
The said truth is that analog is editable but digital is not. The rule of the game is the analog can't delay but only filter but digital can't filter but only delay.

I agree that this is a good view about digital and analog though i disagree we can see whole things in this window.
maybe we find better window for discuss about digital and analog though now i have no idea.

again i agree i should listen to raw digital for final judgment but my sense tell me digital as it's best is not as organic as analog though in my idea even analog has it's limits.
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 18
Post ID: 10280
Reply to: 10278
Digital
fiogf49gjkf0d
 manisandher wrote:
It just seems to me that some people feel that they can correct the 'digital diarrhoea' earlier in the chain... usually by using vinyl and/or tubes. I find this simply ridiculous.

100% agree, audiophiles try to make up their digital sound with tubes or other things.
04-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
eduardo
Posts 9
Joined on 04-17-2009

Post #: 19
Post ID: 10281
Reply to: 10276
Mediocre to badly-sounding digital media
fiogf49gjkf0d


In fact, digital recording allows the industry to  process easily every musical material (a very powerful exchange-tool). Unfortunately,
digital recordings  are also highly corruptible  in the musical-expresive potential  as you point out Romy.Contrary, analog  has much less "processing-facilities" ,being much more resistive to musical-expressive loss. 
Anyway, given the fact that 99,999999 of consumers are incapable to realize  and take care , and adding audiophiles over the world going on giving credit to digital vs analog dilemma, I´m not optimistic about availability of raw digital recordings or any possitive development from  industry ahead of cd, sacd , etc. Even audio quality "reference points" are referred everywhere to as "cd quality", "sacd quality" and so on. We are bound to mediocre sounding media I guess.



Amir:
 
audio practice relates to "actual sound" not to (any kind) of overloaded analysys of "inner character of recorded or played material ". You don´t analyze sound,
you analyze the capability of a given "sound-conceived  structure" to produce sound. alowing you to communicate (or not) with music.
Recorded music , continuously or discontinously "constructed", is not problem for our ears, if a given threshold of "quality" or "resolution" can  connect our brain to the "communicative potential"  music demands. It´s not "what you like" nor "how it sounds" but What you dont like and what you know and you are aware of.   
Again, the dilemma turns out to be a false dilemma discussed by people who want to play the game of "adjetives spreading " on sound and hardware.
You can go for adjetives to the Music, but please ,never to the sound . That is for sure, Audio practice requires  autodiscipline, not adjetives. 
The work to do ( to reasonable audio-practice ) is to develop own reference points in order to clean up the way to connect with the music you are aware of,  with the tools you have at hand or may afford after a rational and honest music listening  process.

Regards


Eduardo
04-22-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 158
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 20
Post ID: 10294
Reply to: 10281
Music
fiogf49gjkf0d
 eduardo wrote:
Amir:
audio practice relates to "actual sound" not to (any kind) of overloaded analysys of "inner character of recorded or played material ". You don´t analyze sound,
you analyze the capability of a given "sound-conceived  structure" to produce sound. alowing you to communicate (or not) with music.
Recorded music , continuously or discontinously "constructed", is not problem for our ears, if a given threshold of "quality" or "resolution" can  connect our brain to the "communicative potential"  music demands. It´s not "what you like" nor "how it sounds" but What you dont like and what you know and you are aware of.   
Again, the dilemma turns out to be a false dilemma discussed by people who want to play the game of "adjetives spreading " on sound and hardware.
You can go for adjetives to the Music, but please ,never to the sound . That is for sure, Audio practice requires  autodiscipline, not adjetives. 
The work to do ( to reasonable audio-practice ) is to develop own reference points in order to clean up the way to connect with the music you are aware of,  with the tools you have at hand or may afford after a rational and honest music listening  process.

Regards


Eduardo, totaly disagree
I agree musicality is related to music and listener brain and audio is another field that we like discuss about it.
I 100% agree when I listen to my favorite music i do not think about audio even with very bad audio system. when i connected to music i forget all hifi.
but i think hifi has it's location and in my idea it is important.
I disagree that hifi has no effect on our brain and i say we can see it's effect in first and higher listening level. our brain can filter it at first level but maybe it be hard for our brain to filter it at higher levels.

brain is a complex structure and there are many thing in our subconscious that we could not easyly undrestand it.

Page 1 of 2 (23 items) Select Pages:  1 2 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A CD off tune? The Big CD Conspiracy theory?..  Low cost re-issues...  Didital Things  Forum     9  59514  08-25-2009
  »  New  The High Resolution PCM files business, where?..  Really bad...  Didital Things  Forum     31  141265  09-29-2009
  »  New  A need for Resolution /Sampling Assessment Test..  Well, we kind of 'have' a file Virginity Assessment Tes...  Didital Things  Forum     1  17453  10-06-2009
  »  New  Zanden 2500S CD player + some general attitude comments..  The hard-reading vs. soft-reading...  Didital Things  Forum     4  39874  11-03-2009
  »  New  The Andrew Rose’s “Pristine Audio” and the XR Mastering..  Paying le mortgage...  Didital Things  Forum     1  18720  11-24-2009
  »  New  To buy an SACD Player?..  Cheap sacd players...  Didital Things  Forum     7  33398  04-02-2012
  »  New  The commercial music servers...  Touch screen remote...  Didital Things  Forum     37  231936  01-10-2008
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts