More Format Wars?

[Julf]

As exciting as this all is, I have, however, one great fear; that the major labels may not be able to resist the temptation to put these studio masters out in a proprietary format. There remains a point of view among certain industry executives, totally misguided in my opinion, that the commercial potential can only be realised through an encrypted format, requiring people to buy new playback devices in order to experience these files.

I am afraid that I share your concern that the major driver for the record labels is the desire for stronger DRM.

 

[TBone]

I've heard many "flat & lifeless" digital playback machines, but thankfully not mine ...

 

[rockitman]

Just for the sake of discussion, and not at all implying it is the case, would it maybe be possible that that is caused by lack of the "soft and warm" compression and added harmonic distortion that typical analog systems exhibit?

I don't know, just going by my ears. As far as compression, vinyl does require it via the riaa eq curve, but it is nowhere to the extent I hear, especially on many rebook cd's.

 

[TBone]

especially on many rebook cd's.

yes ... I once believed all 16/44 media was an "epic fail".

tb1

 

[Julf]

As far as compression, vinyl does require it via the riaa eq curve, but it is nowhere to the extent I hear, especially on many rebook cd's.

I agree - that is unfortunately what is usually referred to as an "artistic choice", sometimes by the artist but mostly by the producer or engineer.

I do wonder how much of the bad rep of "digital" is caused by badly compressed and produced CDs being compared to less-compressed "audiophile" masterings on analog media.

 

[TBone]

I do wonder how much of the bad rep of "digital" is caused by badly compressed and produced CDs being compared to less-compressed "audiophile" masterings on analog media.

and because many tend to judge only on that "absolute" basis ... CD must therefore suck ...

 

[microstrip]

But then we might have to accept that "pleasant" and "rewarding" are not always the same as "accurate" and "perfect".

Yes. I have no doubts on it. We need a better definition of "accuracy" for audio electrical signals than the simple one if we want to claim that audiophiles prefer a more "accurate" signal processing as they find it more "pleasant" and "rewarding" .

 

[Julf]

We need a better definition of "accuracy" for audio electrical signals than the simple one if we want to claim that audiophiles prefer a more "accurate" signal processing as they find it more "pleasant" and "rewarding" .

But I don't see any reason to want to claim that. Nothing wrong with preferring pleasant and rewarding sound - as long as we recognize that it doesn't necessarily imply accuracy, and as long as we don't insist that what we prefer is "best" for everybody else too.

 

[TBone]

We need a better definition of "accuracy" for audio electrical signals than the simple one if we want to claim that audiophiles prefer a more "accurate" signal processing as they find it more "pleasant" and "rewarding" .

Maybe we don't ... in my opinion ... like the best musical instruments, pleasant and rewarding "coloration's" define analog playback to my ears, even at the highest levels. That's what I luv about this hobby, how we can manipulate analog by not only adding transparency, but a certain uniqueness that's inherited within any great sounding system. Hell, what two cartridges sound exactly the same ... what two of anything within an analog rig sounds exactly the same for that matter ... analog reproduction remains very much a moving target ...

tb1

 

[Julf]

like the best musical instruments, pleasant and rewarding "coloration's" define analog playback to my ears

To me too - for instrument amplification, I definitely use analog, but recognize that it is a form of processing and coloration, in a pleasant and rewarding way. Instruments don't need to be accurate, they need to have an emotional impact. Reproducing the final result of a recording, as the artist/producer/engineer intended, is another matter.

 

[mep]

Fooood Fight!!! It's Saturday, and it seems plenty are willing to start another digital vs. analog fight. Riddle me this though: why is that the digital crusaders for the most part have no analog in their systems and are relying upon old memories of what analog used to sound like in their system and yet lots if not most analog lovers do have digital in their systems and constantly hear both being played and rely upon that when they comment on the sound of analog vs. digital?

For me, I would rather go with recent/daily experience vs. memories from decades ago. And having a tube in your DAC doesn't make you a digital wizard either.

 

[mep]

Maybe we don't ... in my opinion ... like the best musical instruments, pleasant and rewarding "coloration's" define analog playback to my ears, even at the highest levels. That's what I luv about this hobby, how we can manipulate analog by not only adding transparency, but a certain uniqueness that's inherited within any great sounding system. Hell, what two cartridges sound exactly the same ... what two of anything within an analog rig sounds exactly the same for that matter ... analog reproduction remains very much a moving target ...

tb1

Uh, how can you add transparency at the end of the signal chain?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Fooood Fight!!! It's Saturday, and it seems plenty are willing to start another digital vs. analog fight. Riddle me this though: why is that the digital crusaders for the most part have no analog in their systems and are relying upon old memories of what analog used to sound like in their system and yet lots if not most analog lovers do have digital in their systems and constantly hear both being played and rely upon that when they comment on the sound of analog vs. digital?

For me, I would rather go with recent/daily experience vs. memories from decades ago. And having a tube in your DAC doesn't make you a digital wizard either.

No riddle there. If you know you prefer digital, why on earth would you hold on to an antiquated format that is expensive, fussy, noisy, inconvenient and plays media that is mostly used and worn? Now, if people like myself, who are convinced of the superiority of digital, were holding on to turntables and tape decks, and scouring used record shops for reasonably undamaged media, instead of having a nice cup of coffee, typing in "Listen to the Lion" and having all four versions of it in their library appear instantly in view, that would be a riddle.

Tim

 

[Julf]

why is that the digital crusaders for the most part have no analog in their systems and are relying upon old memories of what analog used to sound like in their system and yet lots if not most analog lovers do have digital in their systems and constantly hear both being played and rely upon that when they comment on the sound of analog vs. digital?.

I can't comment on "digital crusaders", but I know I have both analog and digital front-ends, and still work pretty regularly with both, so I have no need to rely on memory. Yes, I enjoy listening to a fully analog system, but there is no way I would claim it is more accurate or faithful to the original recording compared to my digital systems.

Yes, maybe we should try to get back to discussing Neil Young introducing Yet Another Hi-Res Copy Protection System To Protect Record Label Revenue Streams...

 

[rockitman]

No riddle there. If you know you prefer analog, why on earth would you hold on to an antiquated format that is expensive, fussy, noisy, inconvenient and plays media that is mostly used and worn?

Tim

That's a world i am very unfamiliar with...noisy, worn vinyl. If that is your excuse for dumping analog, it's misguided at best. You do need more money than you would for very good digital. Fussy ? Not so much if you have the right tools and know what you are doing. Plus it's better for you health wise as you need to get up off your ass to flip sides every 10 to 20 minutes depending on the record speed.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Your question was not about "better". It was about "perfect". Neither analog or digital are perfect, because both have finite resolution.

There's no point continuing this discussion until you stop being disingenuous.

 

[TBone]

No food fight, more food for thought ...

 

[TBone]

Uh, how can you add transparency at the end of the signal chain?

Geez, you boys are big into twisted intents ...

I said, "we can manipulate analog by not only adding transparency" in context with the rest of my post which basically states that within any analog chain (cart/arm/table/pre) we can all attempt to attain more transparency in our gear thru choice; but since no two analog components sound exactly the same ... it will result in a unique sound never-the-less

Get it?

(hence unique is much different, and perhaps more desirable, than "perfect" to many of us).

tb1

 

[c1ferrari]

View attachment 11613

This new digital is complete bullshit, the tape won't even fit into the damn player for crying out loud!

Hahaha

 

[Bruce B]

This new digital is complete bullshit, the tape won't even fit into the damn player for crying out loud!

Greg, you need digital tape for that!!