Digital is in its infancy.
How do you figure this? Digital is approximately 40 years old.
I would consider 40 years hardly to be infancy.
Digital is in its infancy.
Hi Lee,I have a few random thoughts on this subject.
1. It’s better to use digital to playback digital recordings. It’s better to use LP or tape to playback analog recordings.
2. Music gets robbed with an ADC and DAC conversion although it has become much better lately.
3. Analog tape holds the most musical information, followed by good LP. LP is really more around dvd-audio or SACD in sound quality. I learned this from Tim DeParavicini.
4. I prefer DSD to PCM, although PCM can sound very good.
5. Both digital and analog can sound amazing when the original recording is good and the mastering is good.
6. Some think of digital as being more clean sounding for some reason but like the wow and flutter of vinyl digital has it’s own issues. You have jitter, zero crossing distortion, ringing, etc.
7. I tend to prefer DACs with very good linearity. I think that’s why I gravitated to the dCS products. That is something they excel at.
8. The recent Continuum Caliburn experience has taught me that a lot of the quietness of digital can be replicated with very good analog playback.
Interesting. They each have their opinion. Objectivity is not the result of a vote. The closest you get is some notion of consensus, but what counts as that is likewise not objective.
it will be a normal curve distribution and half will be wrong haha!'Imagine this:
There are 3 identical rooms, in room A a guitar is being played. In room B a recording is being played of the same guitarist/song on a cheap hifi. In room C the same recording is being played on a good system. 100 people visit all 3 rooms, 100 people think room C is more like the live guitarist. Are the 100 people correct that room C has
greater fidelity or are they expressing a subjective view?'
Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?
Well, why would 10 years be needed to prove I am wrong?
Imagine this:
There are 3 identical rooms, in room A a guitar is being played. In room B a recording is being played of the same guitarist/song on a cheap hifi. In room C the same recording is being played on a good system. 100 people visit all 3 rooms, 100 people think room C is more like the live guitarist. Are the 100 people correct that room C has
greater fidelity or are they expressing a subjective view?
'Imagine this:
There are 3 identical rooms, in room A a guitar is being played. In room B a recording is being played of the same guitarist/song on a cheap hifi. In room C the same recording is being played on a good system. 100 people visit all 3 rooms, 100 people think room C is more like the live guitarist. Are the 100 people correct that room C has
greater fidelity or are they expressing a subjective view?'
Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?
Interesting. They each have their opinion. Objectivity is not the result of a vote. The closest you get is some notion of consensus, but what counts as that is likewise not objective.
I believe the analogue distortion would dominate in the perceived sound. Well, it's basically food for thought for me at this point, but interesting one.What would be the point of grafting analog distortions onto digital distortions?
Ok, what about if the group are all experienced guitarists and they are asked if the guitar is metal or nylon stringed. 100% couldn't tell from the cheap system. 100% guessed correctly with the good system. Is the good system of higher fidelity?msg#274
msg$284
Unless I'm missing something, the top quote from msg#274 and the bottom quote from msg#284 are the same except the bottom quote adds the last line: "Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?"
My response to your second message is similar in reasoning to the answer that I gave your original message, that is:
The idea that an individual or a group can "be correct" about a judgement on the faithfullness of a recording to a live performance presumes there is an answer to your question that is independent of subjective judgement, that is, an objective answer, some external reality or 'fact' that is true apart from people's experience and judgement. There is no such thing.
A group of people is still a collection of individuals. There is no 'group opinion' apart from or distinct from the opinions of each person in the group. Just because their opinions agree does not make the group an entity or a reality separate from the collection individuals.
You seem to be poking at the basic notion of objectivity. What are you after?
I have two separate rooms. One for two channel on a home theater with Atmos so I can and do keep things straight. Sorry. The problem with truth speakers and truth tellers is that truth is usually not their concern.Stating the truth is often understood by some as being smug.
PS: “Soray“ is spelled “Sorry.” So many atmos speakers no wonder you can’t keep things straight. Enjoy.
How do you figure this? Digital is approximately 40 years old.
I would consider 40 years hardly to be infancy.
Yes but I have that. My room is 16'X40'X 16'(vaulted). The rear wall is mostly open and extends back another 30' thus I don't have a standing wave issue. My Wilson dealer commented on setup it is was a wonderful acoustic space.I agree with you about speakers. The second most important factor is the room itself.
I can not agree more. That also reflects my experience with recording or mastering engineers. They're not famous or best engineers around but it is important to understand how they approach sound quality in general. They use printer usb cables for A/D and D/A converters, don't care about ASAPI drivers, bit perfect, dithering, oversampling etc. Their "better" means a software with more options.who cares about preferences of the typical recording engineer? recording engineers are generally ignorant of true analog performance. when i've had them in my room they mostly are blown away by what great vinyl pressings can do on high quality turntables. the digital tools they have to mimic analog sound are not in the realm of the real thing.
there are exceptions of course.
where would these guys get exposed to top level vinyl? or what would cause them to pursue it?
and many of these guys might have top flight adc's, but maybe not the best dac's. they might not even really know how good their digital is either. i suppose we can't expect them to view sonics like audiophiles. which, of course, is my point.
What I’m referring in my statement is (1) streaming and (2) the new generation of DACs. Streaming is rather new as it began around 1999 (Napster). And while DACs have been out longer, the newer generation of DACs (Horizon, Wadax, etc.) seem to be just beginning. The DAC I own today is light years beyond the one I used in the mid 80s.
Technology in digital audio is thrusting forward. Newer innovations in DACs and Streaming platforms are on the proverbial drawing boards…. How many devices does just Emile have planned for us?
Almost 90% of an iceberg is underwater. As far as digital audio goes, I believe we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. As such I see it as only in its infancy. If what has happened in digital audio during the past 10 years continues then I believe the future is bright for digital…. Who knows what is under the water of future innovations?
Not the ones I know.I can not agree more. That also reflects my experience with recording or mastering engineers. They're not famous or best engineers around but it is important to understand how they approach sound quality in general. They use printer usb cables for A/D and D/A converters, don't care about ASAPI drivers, bit perfect, dithering, oversampling etc. Their "better" means a software with more options.
I don't think it was like this in the past. IMHO convenience offered by digital technology caused it. Quality and convenience inversely correlated.
Yeah, my ex business partner owned a mastering studio, all the engineers were tone deaf, lol.I can not agree more. That also reflects my experience with recording or mastering engineers. They're not famous or best engineers around but it is important to understand how they approach sound quality in general. They use printer usb cables for A/D and D/A converters, don't care about ASAPI drivers, bit perfect, dithering, oversampling etc. Their "better" means a software with more options.
I don't think it was like this in the past. IMHO convenience offered by digital technology caused it. Quality and convenience inversely correlated.