Done with digital

[rDin]

Long thread about nothing but personal preference.

Kal, big fan But your point is? This is a public forum where subjectivities are discussed. We recognise we are sharing anecdotes, but that doesn't make it any less interesting. From debate comes truth...

 

[microstrip]

FWIW, I'm not one to be hard - scientific results only, I use all tools at my disposal. I think this is one of the shortfalls in our hobby, everyone seems to be hard science (presumed objective) or hard subjective. Both can be used in tandem and can be quite valuable. In any case, happy listening!

A fundamental key point of science in such subjective matter is the absence of knowledge - proper blind tests - control tests and statistics. As far as I know no one in this forum has described proper tests he has carried and presented the results in a way they can be scrutinized. Occasional casual blind tests can make us feel better, but are not significant.

I enjoy the objective size of this hobby, but I consider it as a personal preference. Just IMHO, YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

Kal, big fan But your point is? This is a public forum where subjectivities are discussed. We recognise we are sharing anecdotes, but that doesn't make it any less interesting. From debate comes truth...

IMHO the truth can come from debates centered on what professionals who deal with this reality everyday say about these matters. See for example this interview with Bert can der Wolf https://www.psaudio.com/copper/article/bert-van-der-wolf/ - too many interesting concepts to be summarized in a short paragraph.

I quote an appetizer "The biggest problem is that digital sound, offering ultra-high resolution, often shoots past the reality of life"

 

[wil]

I think you may be missing the criteria for A B A which does not necessarily need to be time intensive. Also one might argue if you need extended listening to be able to hear a difference, is there really a difference?

Also, my cable example was simply one that I did recently, it could have as easily been an upsampling filter, a subwoofer settings, etc.

For me, if there is a difference, I hear it right away. But determining if the difference is preferred takes longer.

It's also not unusual that I don't hear any meaningful difference at all -- especially if it's un-sighted ABA.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, big fan But your point is? This is a public forum where subjectivities are discussed. We recognise we are sharing anecdotes, but that doesn't make it any less interesting. From debate comes truth...

From debate comes perspective, understanding and, perhaps, consensus and tolerance. Objective truth requires other tools.

 

[wil]

interview with Bert can der Wolf https://www.psaudio.com/copper/article/bert-van-der-wolf/ - too many interesting concepts to be summarized in a short paragraph.

I quote an appetizer "The biggest problem is that digital sound, offering ultra-high resolution, often shoots past the reality of life"

Worth reading for unbiased digital or analog listeners, interested in natural sound and the great potential, if in the right hands, of modern digital recording.

He makes the important point that digital tools when not handled with restraint can create exaggerated results. He talks about extreme depth of field, where everything is in focus and how this can be counter to how we naturally experience music. This illusion of perfect depth of field is what the F64 group of photographers, led by Ansel Adams, practiced to great effect. I think it's likely to work better visually than sonically, but is still, like all art, an artificial construction.

I'm curious to check out some of Bert van der Wolf's recordings.

The initial subject of this thread, imho, is less interesting and more narrow minded. The op has said repeatedly, across a few forums, how horrible digital sound is and how it makes him feel ill-- as if it is some universal truth. More constructive and interesting would be to look at why it might be failing for him in light of all the experiences of people who have made digital playback work exceedingly well.

 

[rDin]

From debate comes perspective, understanding and, perhaps, consensus and tolerance. Objective truth requires other tools.

Thank you for the reply, although I note you didn't answer my question We need to be careful to not move goal posts here - this discussion isn't about objective truth, and shouldn't be characterised as such. We are discussing subjective truths. And the only way to understand each others subjective truths is through discussions such as this...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

We are discussing subjective truths.

I know. I choose not to deal with the issue of subjective truths.

 

[rando]

IMHO the truth can come from debates centered on what professionals who deal with this reality everyday say about these matters. See for example this interview with Bert can der Wolf https://www.psaudio.com/copper/article/bert-van-der-wolf/ - too many interesting concepts to be summarized in a short paragraph.

To my ears behaviors exemplified in your linked article have been part and parcel inside the largest modern foible of recording serious music. I'm going to perform another sanitary examination of my stored files with prejudice. Doubly so if it lands on a recording of certain composer's works that have been taken beyond excess. CC does not find itself among my physical library outside a few CD's of little represented artists from their earliest efforts.

Furthermore, the development of digital mixing tools, the enormous DSP power of edit engines and various plug-ins for reverb, delay, and more have multiplied our options for creativity in the editing and mastering room. That adds a lot to the magic and makes it more likely to communicate exactly what musicians intend to transmit onstage.

Sad admission proffered in the belief it has propelled his chosen vocation forwards.

What the musicians wish to convey is how hateful this and the next 100M Beethoven revisitations will continue to be! No matter how many new toys are invented to preserve confused memories of having tickled a fanny successfully back when people sat through these to greet whatever other delights the maestro inserted that night.

The biggest problem is that digital sound, offering ultra-high resolution, often shoots past the reality of life. An ultra-high-definition TV can show a picture that does not exist in real life. You can zoom in on a fly on the wall at 60 yards and see its eyeballs if you want. In audio it sometimes feels as if transparency and dynamics have been overexposed—exaggerated, really—within the mix. High End now implies a move toward unrealistic transparency and projection from all angles of the soundstage, encouraged by equipment that enables this. But real life has logical blurs around the focal point—a point that should, in contrast, be very high-res!

That is the full thought Micro failed to recreate.

Rife with calculated limiting and compression of subject matter to present his statement as the full picture. Not everyone is so easily fooled. I'd expect hope for a better read by micro of articles such as this one intended, as is so far as I'm aware everything PS PR releases, to sate unsophisticated interests with answers that turn them back towards listening undeterred. Commendable to that end. Not when displayed as the proliferation of nuanced technical insights by those as active in the high end as he is.

The first quote above fully answered what formulates Mr. van der Wolf's central motive. Pop music studio magic that gyrates and flashes before moving on quickly. Hits!!! No matter how many times you replay it there is some unnaturally occurring fascination both impossible and improbably perfected. I almost feel sickly compelled to check the roster of stars touched by his magic to see if any have formally become a signatory to this business by getting his label's logo tattooed on their body. How modern and flattering to the base instincts this all is.

Here is the bar being inverted so as to appear it is being easily sailed over by nearly every release. We are in an age of nothing less than shortsighted money grabs playing to strong hand of the majors. Brainless and indescribable emotional contexts distorting relevance of humane themes composer assembled.

All in all quite an apt explanation of why some lacking critical insight and discrimination might choose to dispose of digital wholesale. Return to an age less pressing than reality of today instead of facing the challenges determining for their own self what rises above abundant falsities.


Pick a pill bottle. Pick a composition. Pick a conflict. Pick a mass release.
There is your nutshell for carrying around to turn over in a pocket while out in public.

 

[wil]

To my ears behaviors exemplified in your linked article have been part and parcel inside the largest modern foible of recording serious music. I'm going to perform another sanitary examination of my stored files with prejudice. Doubly so if it lands on a recording of certain composer's works that have been taken beyond excess. CC does not find itself among my physical library outside a few CD's of little represented artists from their earliest efforts.



Sad admission proffered in the belief it has propelled his chosen vocation forwards.

What the musicians wish to convey is how hateful this and the next 100M Beethoven revisitations will continue to be! No matter how many new toys are invented to preserve confused memories of having tickled a fanny successfully back when people sat through these to greet whatever other delights the maestro inserted that night.



That is the full thought Micro failed to recreate.

Rife with calculated limiting and compression of subject matter to present his statement as the full picture. Not everyone is so easily fooled. I'd expect hope for a better read by micro of articles such as this one intended, as is so far as I'm aware everything PS PR releases, to sate unsophisticated interests with answers that turn them back towards listening undeterred. Commendable to that end. Not when displayed as the proliferation of nuanced technical insights by those as active in the high end as he is.

The first quote above fully answered what formulates Mr. van der Wolf's central motive. Pop music studio magic that gyrates and flashes before moving on quickly. Hits!!! No matter how many times you replay it there is some unnaturally occurring fascination both impossible and improbably perfected. I almost feel sickly compelled to check the roster of stars touched by his magic to see if any have formally become a signatory to this business by getting his label's logo tattooed on their body. How modern and flattering to the base instincts this all is.

Here is the bar being inverted so as to appear it is being easily sailed over by nearly every release. We are in an age of nothing less than shortsighted money grabs playing to strong hand of the majors. Brainless and indescribable emotional contexts distorting relevance of humane themes composer assembled.

All in all quite an apt explanation of why some lacking critical insight and discrimination might choose to dispose of digital wholesale. Return to an age less pressing than reality of today instead of facing the challenges determining for their own self what rises above abundant falsities.


Pick a pill bottle. Pick a composition. Pick a conflict. Pick a mass release.
There is your nutshell for carrying around to turn over in a pocket while out in public.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the zoomed photos, as they are completely meaningless. The digital photo was taken at much lower resolution. One could of course show an example with the optical photo blurred under enlargement and the digital capture highly resolved.

And why are you talking about pop music in relation to van der Wolf's recordings? I believe he primarily records and masters classical.

My takeaway from the interview with van der Wolf is that digital recording technology and tools give producers and engineers powerful tools that can either be mis-used/abused for horrible artificial results. OR, if in the hands of someone with more sophisticated abilities and sensibilities, can be used to produce great recorded music.

 

[andromedaaudio]

We are discussing subjective truths.

This has been going on since i joined about 10 years ago .

The truth is .....the Conclusion : Its basically a useless discussion

 

[microstrip]

To my ears behaviors exemplified in your linked article have been part and parcel inside the largest modern foible of recording serious music. I'm going to perform another sanitary examination of my stored files with prejudice. Doubly so if it lands on a recording of certain composer's works that have been taken beyond excess. CC does not find itself among my physical library outside a few CD's of little represented artists from their earliest efforts.



Sad admission proffered in the belief it has propelled his chosen vocation forwards.

What the musicians wish to convey is how hateful this and the next 100M Beethoven revisitations will continue to be! No matter how many new toys are invented to preserve confused memories of having tickled a fanny successfully back when people sat through these to greet whatever other delights the maestro inserted that night.



That is the full thought Micro failed to recreate.

Rife with calculated limiting and compression of subject matter to present his statement as the full picture. Not everyone is so easily fooled. I'd expect hope for a better read by micro of articles such as this one intended, as is so far as I'm aware everything PS PR releases, to sate unsophisticated interests with answers that turn them back towards listening undeterred. Commendable to that end. Not when displayed as the proliferation of nuanced technical insights by those as active in the high end as he is.

The first quote above fully answered what formulates Mr. van der Wolf's central motive. Pop music studio magic that gyrates and flashes before moving on quickly. Hits!!! No matter how many times you replay it there is some unnaturally occurring fascination both impossible and improbably perfected. I almost feel sickly compelled to check the roster of stars touched by his magic to see if any have formally become a signatory to this business by getting his label's logo tattooed on their body. How modern and flattering to the base instincts this all is.

Here is the bar being inverted so as to appear it is being easily sailed over by nearly every release. We are in an age of nothing less than shortsighted money grabs playing to strong hand of the majors. Brainless and indescribable emotional contexts distorting relevance of humane themes composer assembled.

All in all quite an apt explanation of why some lacking critical insight and discrimination might choose to dispose of digital wholesale. Return to an age less pressing than reality of today instead of facing the challenges determining for their own self what rises above abundant falsities.


Pick a pill bottle. Pick a composition. Pick a conflict. Pick a mass release.
There is your nutshell for carrying around to turn over in a pocket while out in public.

Thanks for your time replying to my post, but your confuse answer shows you completely missed my point - an appetizer is not a summary. It is a sentence that calls your attention.

 

[twitch]

This has been going on since i joined about 10 years ago .

The truth is .....the Conclusion : Its basically a useless discussion

LOL and the funny thing is my post is #273, glad I didn't waste my time reading all 272 that preceded !!

 

[Lee]

not all 16/44. but lots of the native 16/44 simple recordings are equivalent. 16/44 comes in so many shapes and sizes of source quality. dsd native is mostly well recorded stuff. the recording is king......and native.....always.

My testing on live events suggests that DSD is a bit above 24/96 PCM, all else being equal with a split mic feed.

 

[Lee]

There are three things, imho, that really determine sound quality in digital formats:

1. Original recording: mic placement, quality of recording format, ADC quality, etc.
2. Mastering quality: quality mastering engineer? Good tape research?
3. Digital playback format: higher resolution the better, in both DSD and PCM terms.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The truth is .....the Conclusion : Its basically a useless discussion

I do not think so. In this hobby we do not have the time or conditions to listen to all kind of gear. Reading these threads allows us to understand member preferences, interests or/and agendas - something fundamental to learn useful things and information from this forum. And yes, occasionally we learn very interesting things if we have an open mind.

My apologies for not being able to supply the next music in the early laserdisk format - I think many people writing in this thread only see movies existing in this format, free from audio "digitalitis" !

 

[rando]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the zoomed photos, as they are completely meaningless. The digital photo was taken at much lower resolution. One could of course show an example with the optical photo blurred under enlargement and the digital capture highly resolved.

I'm sure that is your opinion and I have no intent to argue you away from it.


It continues...

And why are you talking about pop music in relation to van der Wolf's recordings? I believe he primarily records and masters classical.

First, he spent the entire article discussing something that would be rather dull fare if it were not for the fact it lacked traditional or widespread usage inside Classical music on the production side.

Second, I referred to techniques and equipment developed within the highly lucrative popular music sector. Try the Deutsche Grammophon label if you lack exposure to the blending of pop genres with classical forms. Also techniques and equipment operating under the same lack of disguise van der Wolf used.

My takeaway from the interview with van der Wolf is that digital recording technology and tools give producers and engineers powerful tools that can either be mis-used/abused for horrible artificial results. OR, if in the hands of someone with more sophisticated abilities and sensibilities, can be used to produce great recorded music.

Again your opinion will not receive a single iota it should feel need to defend itself against. That your ears find complementary elements in how these recordings were processed is a great stopping point for both of us.

 

[mauidj]

Long thread about nothing but personal preference. That's OK unless/until preference is confused with and promoted as truth.
(N.B.: I am not promoting my prefences as truth.)

Interesting take. So what if it's personal preference. I always thought that reviews were subjective. After all our ears and brains are different. Our rooms are different. Our needs are different. But regardless, i feel it is a bit odd for a professional reviewer to be so negative towards a thesis even if he or she does not agree. I am interested to hear it regardless of my personal preferences. Love your writing BTW! Aloha!

 

[wil]

I'm sure that is your opinion and I have no intent to argue you away from it.

That the photo's included in thepost are a blatant mis-representation of anything factual relating to digital or film photography, is not an opinion. It's a fact. I can only guess the photos were included as a misguided attempt to illustrate superiority of film/analog over all things digital??

I responded because I didn't want anyone who doesn't understand the basics of resolution as it pertains to photography, whether digital or film, to be misled into thinking this false representation had anything to do with reality or the discussion of digital and analog audio.

 

[rando]

Thanks for your time replying to my post, but your confuse answer shows you completely missed my point - an appetizer is not a summary. It is a sentence that calls your attention.

I have to admit not quite seeing through to the core of your point in suggesting that article and then only partially keying in on the furtive statement. Apologies if you felt that post bypassed you with little regard in the course of exploring the content hinted at.