More Format Wars?
- Thread starter MylesBAstor
- Start date
Interesting that the focus is on sample rate and bit depth while implicitly assuming that everything else in the playback system is hunky dory. When it comes to really feeling the music I think there are far more important things to worry about. I'd be more interested if someone waged heavy peace on passive-, or undersized speakers, or those with too few drivers, all of which, in my opinion, are far more detrimental to the sound than the sample rate/bit depth. It goes without saying that low bit rate MP3 is shockingly bad, but all the evidence is that dithered 16/44.1 is 'transparent' for music.
He's conducting an interesting psychological experiment with the visual styling of the first player, though.
He's conducting an interesting psychological experiment with the visual styling of the first player, though.
Attachments
And over-compressed, badly produced and mastered music is a much bigger problem than either sample rates or speaker sizes.
The thing with sample rates and bit depths is that it makes it easier for the marketing departments - more must be better, right? Makes you able to produce marketing material like this:
(thanks to Mark Waldrep for pointing out that one)
As a 20+ year reviewer I use multiple recordings purchased over the years to test equipment. I began to realize that early CDs sounded far superior to new CDs of the same album. As the compression wars began and I read the early reports on the the wars I knew that the real problem was/is compression. I hope the trend that NIN is taking will get the music industry to focus here (two releases, one compressed, one not) that good sound sells, not high rez sells.
Indeed, and it is very ironic, considering how much better the technology has gotten in that same period.
NIN might not be the best example of non-compressed music
Like everything audio, I will take the wait and see approach on PONO, until I hear what it offers everything else is just speculation and meaningless gibber jabber
Why is it that's it's always another excuse for why digital sounds like crap? Every year brings another reason, except for of course for those who believe the marketing material. It's jitter, it's revealing the mikes, bits, sampling rate, compression, parts in the analog section, etc., etc.
Well golly gee Wally, the Nyquist theorem says it perfect. Somebody pass Myles the digital Kool Aid.
Not all of us think it sounds crap. Some of us think all the analog formats available to ordinary consumers sound much worse. All a question of preferences and tastes.
I disagree. I think those reasons tend to be paraded by the people who want you to think that what you have isn't good enough and you need to spend more money on "better" stuff (and publications that tell you what you should buy).
This new digital is complete bullshit, the tape won't even fit into the damn player for crying out loud!
One thing I have learned over time is that trying to change a die-hard digital lover's opinion about the sound of analog is like sending a gay person to a conversion camp in hopes of turning them straight. It's all a waste of time and energy. You are who you are, you hear what you hear, and you believe what you want to believe.
DSD is the only digital format that I can sit and listen to for hours. There is no doubt in my mind that DSD is the best sounding digital format that we have in the here and now-specially DSD that was sourced from, uh, analog tape. Anyone who says that analog sounds far worse than RBCD digital has some 'splaining to do with regards to what must have been a crappy analog front-end they used to own back in the stone ages before they sold off all of their LPs when CD was first introduced.
DSD is the only digital format that I can sit and listen to for hours. There is no doubt in my mind that DSD is the best sounding digital format that we have in the here and now-specially DSD that was sourced from, uh, analog tape. Anyone who says that analog sounds far worse than RBCD digital has some 'splaining to do with regards to what must have been a crappy analog front-end they used to own back in the stone ages before they sold off all of their LPs when CD was first introduced.
Yes just like Communist propaganda. 1/2% fact, 99 1/2% fiction.
And no one outside of a very few here have actually compared the digital copy of a master tape vs. the tape. No matter what the analog deficiencies, the digital copy should be perfect, copy. It ain't. It ain't even close. It's an epic fail. So how can digital. be right in real life?
Similar threads
