What is the point of listening to a sublime Atmos mix of music you don't like?
Here is that album on YouTube:
Not my cup of tea!
Last edited:
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
What is the point of listening to a sublime Atmos mix of music you don't like?
Here is that album on YouTube:
Not my cup of tea!
It can certainly be fun, because it can be so impressive - at first...
Got it. Vis à vis Peter Hoff, it is the type of jazz I don't "get", but perhaps someday I will!
I would not express the same opinion about folks such as Alan Parsons, Kenneth Wilkinson, Bob Fine, Lewis Layton etc. etc.Oh Please, i had a few professional grammy nominated sound engineers/ producers working for me/with me, when i owned a commercial recording studio.They are very focused on getting a sound that works for the great masses, not audiophiles. They care about convenience, not ultimate fidelity, most of them would not recognize good sound if it bit them in the ass !
It’s actually quite common. Mastering engineer Bob Katz has Dynaudio speakers and a slew of other high end brands before it. Bob Ludwig used Eggleston Works. The engineers at Vienna’s Musikverein use Wilson Audio. Rick Rubin uses Wilsons.
And sometimes they choose less conventional speakers when they want to relax at home. Dave Chesky in his listening room:
SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com - Quad 57s at 57
Last edited:
Randomly listening to a Robert Palmer track this afternoon, and appalled by the sound quality, I found this interesting article comparing several CD versions:
superdeluxeedition.com
The issues described are exactly the reason some turn to vinyl.
It is one of many examples.
The theoretical differences between digital and analog don't amount to a hill of beans when we are faced with the reality of mastering quality issues, as has been pointed out before in this thread.
Expert Witness: Which is the best sounding Robert Palmer remaster? – SuperDeluxeEdition
superdeluxeedition.com
The issues described are exactly the reason some turn to vinyl.
It is one of many examples.
The theoretical differences between digital and analog don't amount to a hill of beans when we are faced with the reality of mastering quality issues, as has been pointed out before in this thread.
Paradoxically, I believe that the question asked by the OP is of more interest to audiophiles that use only digital, than to audiophiles who only use analog.
Though they won't always admit it, many "digital only" audiophiles are in fact dissatisfied with the sound they get, on a significant number of albums. They long for a more "analog" sound.
This is the leitmotif behind a lot of discussions of digital topics on audio forums. I have also confirmed this through my personal interactions.
Even the more vocal supporters of digital audio sometimes seem like they are really trying to convince themselves rather than others.
The reason for this probably goes beyond the source material (CD sound quality). On many digital audio forums there are periodic episodes of collective euphoria around solutions. They are often short lived (less than a year). There is probably more voodoo involved with digital solutions than there are with analog. In other words - digital should be basic ("bits are bits") but it isn't, and no one seems to understand what's going on!
Witness this recent video (start at 0:30 if you want to skip the intro):
As a result, while digital offers practically free access to a vast amount of music, it seems many audiophiles gravitate towards the same music.
This is all a bit of a caricature, but am I wrong?
Though they won't always admit it, many "digital only" audiophiles are in fact dissatisfied with the sound they get, on a significant number of albums. They long for a more "analog" sound.
This is the leitmotif behind a lot of discussions of digital topics on audio forums. I have also confirmed this through my personal interactions.
Even the more vocal supporters of digital audio sometimes seem like they are really trying to convince themselves rather than others.
The reason for this probably goes beyond the source material (CD sound quality). On many digital audio forums there are periodic episodes of collective euphoria around solutions. They are often short lived (less than a year). There is probably more voodoo involved with digital solutions than there are with analog. In other words - digital should be basic ("bits are bits") but it isn't, and no one seems to understand what's going on!
Witness this recent video (start at 0:30 if you want to skip the intro):
As a result, while digital offers practically free access to a vast amount of music, it seems many audiophiles gravitate towards the same music.
This is all a bit of a caricature, but am I wrong?
Last edited:
Yeah, you're wrong.
I am entirely happy with my digital sound, no ifs and buts, no reservations.
I listen mostly to classical and contemporary classical avant-garde, and the recordings/masterings there are usually very good to great. Also my jazz albums sound mostly very good to great. As for rock, I look for masterings that do not suffer from the loudness wars, and in many cases you can find them, if you are not dependent on streaming but buy your own CDs or file downloads.
No, I don't want an analog sound, I want a believable sound. That's what I usually get with digital.
An important factor is both your digital source and your system as a whole, as well as your room (a lot of distortions that I ascribed to digititis in the past were in fact room distortions, as I found out after I eliminated them). The better my system became over time, the better the recordings appear to be. A number of recordings that I had judged to be mediocre in the past turned out to be very good to excellent.
You are describing the typical streaming problems, and the often short-lived "solutions" for them. I don't have these problems, since I am spinning physical CDs. My problem solver is CD transport > reclocker > DAC.
Sure, great streaming exists, but a lot of it isn't that good. I'm personally not interested in the expense and/or effort it takes to arrive at great high end streaming. I don't want to go through all the frustrations that I have observed elsewhere. My streaming is YouTube, over laptop and headphones.
I realize this was somewhat of a caricature. But you can see from Jay's audio lab's video that it does apply to some - not a small number, IMO.
In addition: perhaps you are right and streaming is generally worse than CDs (don't know I use only streaming and "local" files) or maybe it also has to do with acoustics. I really don't know, and I am just describing what I read and hear (from others). I am not saying it applies to all "digital" audiophiles, but at least a significant portion.
Yes, it does. It appears to apply to a lot of those who are suffering from mediocre streaming (as I said, there is good streaming, but it seems more rare). I don't have those problems with my CD playback.
Also, I think it is likely that due to its linear frequency response to 20 kHz (or higher) digital is more revealing of room problems than vinyl, which usually shows some level of rolloff below 20 kHz, even though its final frequency extension goes beyond that of a CD. A non-optimized room may sound "nasty" with digital, but may be less of a problem with analog.
Many audiophiles insufficiently take care of their rooms. I haven't done so properly either for too long a time. I installed ceiling diffusers in my room only in late 2018, for example, and they have proven to be absolutely vital to adress HF distortions (I realize, however, that not each room has the same problems).
Similar threads
