More Format Wars?

[TBone]

Yes really.

Northstar, would you have a problem if I preferred mustard over ketchup?

 

[NorthStar]

Northstar, would you have a problem if I preferred mustard over ketchup?

No, not at all.

* I'm just not into Pop music, and less and less into Rock.

 

[TBone]

No, not at all.

* I'm just not into Pop music, and less and less into Rock.

So, it is a matter of taste ...

 

[NorthStar]

Yep.

 

[mep]

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? 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

Uh Tim, didn't you mean to say if you know you prefer digital...?

 

[mep]

I didn't need an excuse to walk away from vinyl; I don't like the sound of it. Pretty simple, really.
Tim

No surprise Tim. You had an old Thorens table with a cartridge you couldn't remember the brand and model of and who knows what receiver or integrated amp or possibly a separate phono stage (but I doubt that) that you played it through. Who knows what resolution it was ever capable of and if it was ever setup correctly? Analog requires a commitment from the owner if you want to play it back at the resolution it is capable of.

 

[TBone]

Yep.

just to be certain ...

have a good night North ...

I intend to listen to 16 bit digital later tonight ... (oops) ... I hope audiophiles don't think any less of me ...

 

[mep]

just to be certain ...

have a good night North ...

I intend to listen to 16 bit digital later tonight ... (oops) ... I hope audiophiles don't think any less of me ...

The digital crowd will marvel at your genius.

 

[TBone]

Analog requires a commitment from the owner if you want to play it back at the resolution it is capable of.

so true, levels of commitment true ...

 

[TBone]

The digital crowd will marvel at your genius.

Really?

(sigh#2)

 

[microstrip]

But they'd be wrong ... right?

Neither right or wrong, but they will risk a bad interpretation of my original sentence - that now is lost somewhere in the thread!

BTW, my opinion is that real digital experts should not be loosing their time debating what is better - they should research the real difference and emulate it digitally using the all the bits and the processing available nowadays. I would happily buy such device if it could make my jazz CDs sound as good as my LPs or Tapeproject tapes.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I intend to listen to 16 bit digital later tonight ... (oops) ... I hope audiophiles don't think any less of me ...

Audiophiles will not, but some "digitalphiles" will smile at your words and tell you that you only listen to 13, at best 14, the remaining 3 or 2 are placebos.

 

[mep]

Really?

(sigh#2)

Yep. How many mastering engineers believe 16 bit CD is the best digital available? Only other people that believe RBCD is all you need feel the way that you do. I do find the sound of DSD to be very, very damn good when sourced from tape. I can play most of the hi-rez formats, and the only one that gets playing time anymore is DSD.

There was an interesting video posted in another thread with the mastering engineer that remastered a 3-track Peggy Lee album. He recounted the time a bunch of guys were in a recording studio and they wheeled in a CD player on a cart and plugged it in and they only managed to make it through a minute of listening before they unplugged it and rolled it out of the room.

 

[NorthStar]

We're truly a funny bunch here. :b

* Earlier today I started a thread, in the same forum's section; Digital: DAC, Transport, Digital Processing
And I only posted a link; this one: CD Quality (16/44.1) Is NOT High Resolution Audio

 

[JackD201]

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.

Get with the times Mark, everybody knows that now the fight is Digital vs Digital! LOL. YOu can't even get a consensus between S-D and Ladder much less formats.

Personally I get a kick out of watching the people who dump on us analog lovers fight because at the heart of it all, what they are fighting about isn't what is technically superior but what sounds better subjectively. Oh the irony!

 

[Don Hills]

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. ...

Oh yes, indeed. May I suggest it has general applicability?

Regarding digital vs. analogue, trying to change a die-hard lover of one format's opinion about the sound of the other format 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.

Consider it stolen...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Uh Tim, didn't you mean to say if you know you prefer digital...?

I did.

Tim

 

[Julf]

What crossovers are you using?

The hypex dlcp - it's a digital crossover. The speakers are actively driven, with one nc400 for the 2 tweeters, one nc400 for the 2 mids, and one nc400 each for the 2 KEF139's, so 4 amps in total per channel/speaker.

 

[Julf]

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

Ah, so not giving the answer you want is "disingenious"? Yes, I agree, no point in continuing the discussion then.

 

[TBone]

Only other people that believe RBCD is all you need feel the way that you do.

The way I do?

Please enlighten me, when did I claim that RBCD is all I, or anyone, needs?

The fact is; I've invested in analog, and therefore championed analog for decades and will continue to do just that ... the difference being I no longer (although I once did) feel the need to do so at the expense of redbook. That's because, thru gained experience, I now know better!

... wheeled in a CD player on a cart and plugged it in and they only managed to make it through a minute of listening before they unplugged it and rolled it out of the room.

Wow, what an absolute telling experience that must have been. Sounds like you where there ...

Similar thing happened to me moons ago, when I wheeled the exceedingly heavy, exceeding media-hyped SA777 home and later grudgingly around town to audition it for friends using both converted and DSD based material in comparison to fine analog and/or redbook. Actually, truth be told, I was auditioning it "hoping" to simply find a local buyer. Certainly nobody I knew wanted that anchor, which ended up sitting idle in my system for months. Should've got rid of it in the first 5 minutes ... if only I could ...

tb1