Are you suggesting that those of us who prefer analog to digital are claiming that the former sounds ultimately real? I am not aware of ever making such a claim. Nor do I try to post anything I know to be untruthful.
Last edited:
The Sound of Analog, the Sound of Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Are you suggesting that those of us who prefer analog to digital are claiming that the former sounds ultimately real? I am not aware of ever making such a claim. Nor do I try to post anything I know to be untruthful.
Why are you shocked with Paul's declaration of preference? If you read interviews of manufacturers on this subject you will find that many share similar opinions, although most will say it in a very prudent way, as they do not want to become hostile to any of their possible clients.
But one said it clearly a few days ago: Laurence Dickie of Vivid Audio to TAS http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/qa-with-laurence-dickie-of-vivid-audio/
How do you feel about the shift from physical media to computer-based audio, for example, streaming and downloads?
I’m quite happy to accept that, ultimately, a digitized signal can have all the fidelity and resolution of analog. Whether we’ve reached that point yet is arguable, but I believe we have. I do like the process of putting on an album and enjoying it in full in the order the tracks were arranged by the artists and with the gaps between tracks unedited.
Why shouldn't we consider your system to be top analog? People can prefer other analog flavors, but IMHO your vinyl playback system is in the top echelon.
Last edited:
I appreciate the sentiment, Fransisco, put perhaps that is a subject for its own thread, (though I would not want the barrage of flames for SME). Perhaps Al M. and I simply need more exposure.
I will say that a few vinyl guys who have considerably more experience than I, have told me privately, that I can do significantly better than my current turntable, and for less money, and that it is in fact the weak link in my system. I do not really know, nor do I much care at the moment as I am too busy experimenting with other things that are significantly changing my overall sound, to explore other turntable options right now. Perhaps I will at some future time.
Last edited:
HAHA. Amazing photo. Is that a device to allow him to hear what the mic hears? I see that cable going down into his shirt but don't know what it is. Perhaps if he sat away from that wall on one side he would have a more balanced impression of the sound of the live performance.
Last edited:
View attachment 67555[/QUOTE]
HAHA. Amazing photo. Is that a device to allow him to hear what the mic hears? I see that cable going down into his shirt but don't know what it is. Perhaps if he sat away from that wall on one side he would have a more balanced impression of the sound of the live performance.[/QUOTE]
Or his cellphone, making a pirate recording!
david
HAHA. Amazing photo. Is that a device to allow him to hear what the mic hears? I see that cable going down into his shirt but don't know what it is. Perhaps if he sat away from that wall on one side he would have a more balanced impression of the sound of the live performance.[/QUOTE]
Or his cellphone, making a pirate recording!
david
i certainly view it that way.
every piece is top 2-3%, maybe top 1%, of the choices out there. collectively, especially considering your ultra precision of set-up, you have to be up there.
put it this way; your vinyl front end is not holding your system back from hearing everything there is to hear on a great pressing.
LOL! Digital's been around for at least half a century that I'm aware of I'm sure it would have caught up by now and even surpassed analog's fidelity to deliver "perfection" if it could
!david
Last edited:
Kingsrule, this is precisely why I defer to the opinions of those audiophiles who have both analog and digital in their systems, like MikeL, Ack, and Madfloyd, two of whose systems I know pretty well. They can not be described as "analogue guys" by you. They have and enjoy both formats.
They do not beat the drum of vinyl on the forums, they simply and quietly prefer one over the other. And when I visit them, we play one more than the other. When they have good representations of the two formats and make their choices, I tend to pay a bit more attention to their opinions. Of course there are examples of others who choose differently for whatever reasons.
We both know a deadhead who got a friend to sit in a wheelchair to make bootleg recordings of Jerry and gang. I don't think he was recording D2D with a cutting lathe under that chair. It was incognito though.
My goal has always been to make the two formats sound great, if not spectacular. They do now; that's [subjective] success - to be able to just play any format and enjoy them all - and to get there, the formats have to extol and project the recording, thus the performance.
What really aches me is when things sound obviously wrong, with any format, and I fundamentally believe they can both sound sensational, though strictly speaking, they are both fundamentally limited in their own ways by virtue of their architectures. I do prefer D2D over anything else.
Finally, I would be upset if I had to give up any of my formats, including FM radio, and will strive to get a streaming digital that's equally performant.
Francisco, all of that is discussed in great detail on the other thread from 2019. There is no point in revisiting anew those discussions here.
If you want to pursue the subject matter of that older thread maybe post your question on that older thread. Otherwise, this thread will get even more confused.
Last edited:
Are you bringing a new product to market David ?
I get that. In the old days I rated how good a digital system was by how long it took to get a headache. By the early 1990s a good system took almost five minutes. The last time that happened to me was a RMAF three years ago; which really surprised me (annoying too); I had thought my hearing too degraded, so I took that as being pretty dreadful digital.
You might be interested to know that with about 95% of all phono sections made, many ticks and pops are generated by the phono section, sounding for all the world as if they are on the LP surface. If the phono section is properly designed with good high frequency overload margins many ticks and pops go away. I'm very used to listening to entire album sides free of ticks and pops without using any fancy processing.
With regards to tape, the LP is lower noise, wider bandwidth and lower distortion. Reasons tape might sound better is simply because of the care taken in the production of the tape as opposed to the sort of care taken in the production of the LP, and of course how well the LP playback is set up.
Put audiophiles in a dark room with a light (sonically non-interfering) dark colored curtain so they can't see the stage. Then have real people play some jazz or whatever. Then close the curtains and ask them for comments along the lines of attributes that reviewers use. You'll be sure to get plenty of comments, including criticisms that it wasn't this or that... etc.
I suspect most of us would agree that reproduction is not reality.
Similar threads
Members online
- hopkins
- the sound of Tao
- Rob77
- audiolab
- Freddiekaberman
- bonzo75
- Mark212121
- DW101
- Young Skywalker
- Kingsrule
- mtemur
- Golum
- SiriusIII
- Miramunt
- groovemaster
- NZS
- Chpray
- Passionate98
- Frank is here
- JayT
- Geoffkait
- Hear Here
- kimurastanley
- Hyperion
- XV-1
- The Prof
- kasin
- rt662
- Johan K
- itay123
- andromedaaudio
- Vlade
- Amir
- Ralphio
- Adcc
- tonytsui
- esperance
- dsyzling
- Salectric
- QuantumWave
- lok
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |