The Sound of Analog, the Sound of Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Anything electrical will produce artifacts that are not found in nature that will therefore sound synthetic unless somehow masked. Cables, being passive, is more likely being the case that the best ones minimize the kinds of interactions between fields and materials that result in audible artifacts and also that suppress the retransmission of RFI.
SETs produce plenty of artifacts but they are of a nature, well within their power envelope, that is more maskable by the human ear/brain.
Electromechanical systems (speakers and phono cartridges) will have easier to live with (even if highly audible) artifacts as they are mostly of a mechanical nature...the electrical distortions being primarily low order. With vinyl, a major source of unnatural artifact comes from the TT drive and imperfect speed of the disk, which can lead to rather unnatural changes in pitch and timing. Another point is the need for a phono stage, which can destroy an otherwise great TT rig.
Yes, pity. But he always was primarily a speaker guy.
I also don’t think you need to publish persistently in a given field for a long time for a paper to have significant merit. Indeed it is often someone from OUTSIDE a given area that has the interesting insights. That is their first or only paper doesn’t lessen the scientific validity unless large mistakes can be identified.
OMG. I think to myself the world has gone crazy. Then I read more totally insane “artifact” claims from Brad and think... the world has some catching up to do.
If you prefer distortion i can change the word...you are about the only one who doesn't seem to understand...
If there is A>D conversion there should also be D>A conversion somewhere in the electronic chain, does it really matter where? I suppose if DSD had a high enough sampling rate it might not need a D>A conversion?
I was more aiming at why not do all processing in the digital domain. More perfect and all that...
Sure some amp topologies more or less become the dac but that wasn't the focus of my question.
I think the only "processing" is the speaker system Xover? One possible disadvantage is that with a digital Xover one's system automatically becomes multi-amped, adding expense and possible complexity (matching amps to drivers, as opposed to matching one amp to the Xover))
No because both are not true.
I know exactly what you mean but you simply add to confusion for others. You are going to make them seek gear that does the opposite of what you want with totally wrong descriptions.
Here’s a nice way to describe something that is based on what you hear, not ridiculous proclamations of why you hear it... “it really gets out of the way of the music”. It’s pretty simple, some gear makes you listen to the stereo because you hear small information presented in distracting unnatural ways that make you scrutinize the stereo because the slightest of anything can sound wrong. But other gear “gets out if the way of the music” and you just listen to the music. A lot of the gear that gets out of the way doesn’t always measure like a champ - it’s an easier approach. But also some does measure pretty well but to get that sounding good is a whole other ballgame.
Never have. I looked at their big list of albums for recommendations on classical once. A few times I've skipped to the end to find a price on a review.
But I find it amusing you call what I'm posting gobbledygook since you use words you claim have dictionary definitions they don't.
Oh but I have never done that and it is provable, which makes what you are saying fake news, Folsom. Perhaps you are a prisoner of your own mind?
I've used phrases such as: When listening, I like gear that doesn't make me think about it.
You still need to describe what you hear.
Paul’s next firmware update will fix the organic orange taste so all oranges will taste equally bad so no one caresOrganic orange cannot taste as good as inorganic orange that uses my nutritional program sir.As far as orange concern, I have never tasted a good orange in US. They are too sour for my preference. From the way and style you described sound, you are a romantic Mike. You should like Mandarin orange. There is sweetness to it.
Paul makes a fine product for its price point
But to be honest a cheap used TT would show how far off his stuff is. his point is make one feel better in that his digital is close enough. so it’s an Orange rhat matters less as I see it.
I definitely hear a difference between analog and digital. Night and day. I prefer the analog sound. That’s not to say digital sounds bad. It doesn’t. Analog just seems to provide a warmer, crisper sound in my opinion. That being said I listen to and enjoy both analog and digital.
Similar threads
Members online
- andromedaaudio
- Bruno Rivademar
- haveaseatandlisten
- jbrrp1
- hc.wombat
- bonzo75
- Big Dog RJ
- SoupRKnowva
- Pacha
- Johan K
- TooCool4
- joeling
- Face53
- ralphfcooke
- Rocoa
- highendpassion
- tsaett
- Johngp
- Mark212121
- ingemar
- Tabl10s
- HeavyD
- christensenleif@msn.com
- Amir
- Stbo
- Bobvin
- Mike Lavigne
- Stormcat
- keithc
- leyenda
- 3776Meters
- sbnx
- five
- Massimo66
- Argonaut
- nkjtbushwood
- jazzdude99
- Dvuc
- tomas329
- respected_ent
- Kingrex
- suletata
- cat6man
- Moladiego
- oldmustang
- lamechops
- AVDizainas
- MPW
- Laurusri
- RoAm
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |