More Format Wars?
- Thread starter MylesBAstor
- Start date
You mean like Meyer and Moran did?
Yes. If someone could just go through the motions of confirming objectively what we all know anyway - that 16/44.1 sounds terrible - it would then be a start in demolishing the ridiculous claims that 192/24 is somehow better than analogue.
Except, no one ever does...
The thing about early digital is interesting too, I think. If modern CDs sound so bad, then 1970s digital should be absolutely, utterly, shockingly atrocious. But some of the earliest digital recordings are still considered fine recordings on every level, including audio quality. Classical music enthusiasts are split on whether the newer 1812 Overture recorded by Telarc on DSD is better than the one they made in 1978 and from what I can tell, audio quality is not even raised as a difference; it all centres on the performances.
While everyone is touting the superiority of the higher resolution formats I wonder what these same members are doing with their RDCD's. Tossing them?
No, I'm perfectly happy with ordinary CD - which is not the same thing as saying that all CD mastering is perfect. I think Neil Young has heard some dodgy mastering on CD and has fallen for the man-in-the-street's 'intuitive' version of digital audio that says that 16 bits and 44.1 kHz (unchanged for 30 years) simply can't be good enough.
...and there it is again. We've been down this path before, Mark. I didn't just decide I didn't like vinyl then, based on that old Thorens. I've decided I still don't like vinyl, repeatedly, based on every subsequent vinyl experience I've had. And we've discussed those experiences before as well, though you ignore them anew, every time the subject comes up. It doesn't matter. If I had a modified Technics, or some audiophile-approved Rube Goldberg contraption that looks like it was made in a German machine shop (a friend of mine here, who is quite obsessed with vinyl, has one of these), certain people in the vinyl crowd would blame it on something else in my signal chain. I don't know why some of you guys - who usually talk so boldly about preference and subjectivity - can't seem to let anyone have a preference that disagrees with your love of vinyl. It smacks of deep insecurity. But the answer to this rather shopworn question is it has only been a couple of months since I heard a good vinyl rig, or a very expensive one at least, set-up professionally and maintained by a friend who is pretty obsessive about it, and played through a system that is very high end. It sounded very nice. It always does. But it never makes me wish I had a vinyl rig. I still think it is a source that is very expensive, very high maintenance, and consistently, audibly colored. And I don't like that color.
You not only don't respect that opinion, you don't seem to be able to allow others to have it. No amount of listening to and reporting back on vinyl rigs on my part will help you with that.
Tim
Since acquiring an Oppo 105, I've been playing a lot of digital. More than 50%. I've also purchased a good number of CDs over the past couple of months, undoubtedly inspired by the 105's performance. CDs from all eras, if you will - early to current - and I have to disagree with the comment made before regarding early CDs sounding better. Better, as in more dynamic? OK. Better, as in lacking a silver sheen covering all aspects of the sound, spitty, fragile upper mids, anemic upper bass, total lack of bloom and harmonic structure? No way. The current crop of CDs is so much better, save again for the dynamics. IMNSHE, of course. As for analog compared to the best digital I have - SACD, file, whatever - the analog recording has more presence, more life, it's more "there," more like an actual event taking place in real time, instead of being beamed down from Mars. In my book that equates to "better." YMMV
As MEP has said ad nauseum, it's amazing how people can have an opinion when they've never heard current tape, high Rez, or analog in their system. Or are so gobsmacked by measurements that their brain only thinks in 0 and 1s. Or listen to Isobariks, possibly the worst speaker ever made and sold and so horribly colored as to make it unlistenable. Or anyone can think early CDs sound good. They are exactly as Felix described.
I do love the open-minded, friendly atmosphere of this forum. I am glad we can debate things in a rational, fact based way without having to resort to cheap and silly pejorative rhetoric.
But that isn't the same as saying that 16/44.1 is bad per se. To write off digital recording on the basis of "early CDs" is like writing off analog recording on the basis of the earliest tape and disc recordings and/or mastering by people who didn't know how the new medium worked. These CDs are still around and in exactly the same condition the day they were pressed, so we can listen to them and judge them accordingly. Hopefully the very earliest digital recordings (pre-CD) have also been preserved in a form that is still playable, and can also be judged.
Actually the earliest stereo/tape recordings are amazing and light years ahead of anything that was released in digital's infancy. I'll put a 58/59/60 Contemporary, Prestige, Blue Note, Mercury, RCA, Decca, EMI, etc. against anything done at the beginning of the digital era. And you also gloss over that most of the best digital releases of that era were analog recordings.
Tim-It's usually because those same people that have a digital preference like to dump on analog in general and vinyl in particular and they don't own any analog which makes their opinion uninformed and highly suspect. Going to a friend's house and occasionally hearing a record play isn't the same as owning and playing LPs at your house and in your rig. Frankly, I love having multiple sources to listen to and I very much enjoy listening to DSD. At least if I render an opinion about how the different sources compare to each other it's based on my recent listening experience with my system. Opinions are just that-opinions about what you believe based on what you hear. I would rather hear opinions expressed by people who are informed instead of hearing from a Mr. Potato Head who absolutely hates analog and sleeps with CDs under his pillow in hopes of having sweet digital dreams.
And Jack is right-there are plenty of deep divisions in the digital camp which is kind of funny to watch. Some people think that MP3s recorded at a high sample rate are "good enough." Others are ready to ride off into battle declaring that RBCD is all you need and anything after that is gilding the lily. Others want to fight about S/D chips vs. non-oversampling DACs with a tube stuck in there somewhere. Over the years, digital has become far more complicated than the early years when all you had to do was press "open," insert a CD, press "close" and then press "play," and sit back with your remote and let the digital goodness wash over you. If you have graduated past the CD player phase of digital, things have become much more complicated in the land of the digits. Laptop severs don't set themselves up for instance. You have chosen a very easy digital path to follow. Your speakers contain your amplifiers and your D/A converter. All you have to do is jack in your digital source that contains music that wasn't recorded at a resolution that exceeds the capability of the D/A built into your speakers and Jed's a millionaire. Of course that can put you in the middle of a digital food-fight with those who are convinced that hi-rez PCM (24/192) sounds much better than RBCD let alone those who don't even care for PCM and much prefer DSD. It's a digital jungle out there I tell ya.
Go back and read my very first post to this thread, Mark. In fact, re-read the entire thread. I think you've got the dumping coming from the wrong direction. There's probably more "dumping" in your second paragraph above than there is in the digital defense in this thread. And you're right that listening to a good vinyl rig a few times a year is not the same as owning one. Owning one, when you listen to one a few times a year and hear the same things you dislike on all of them, would be pretty illogical. My first post to this thread, again. Enjoy your vinyl. I've listened to it; recently and repeatedly and in a reasonable variety, and it is not my choice. Why are you so compelled to find an excuse to dismiss my choice? That's really a much more interesting question than the audible differences between the various digital formats. The latter could be answered with a bit of careful testing. Only you can find the answer to the former.
Tim
Indeed. Ridiculous. But nowhere as ridiculous as the utter stupidity of the people vainly defending the abhorrent idea of *electrical amplification*! We all know that the only proper, natural music reproduction comes from a purely mechanical system - with a proper gramophone. Yes, you can argue about whether a cylinder produces better sound than a disc, but how can anyone stand that horrible, sharp, artificial electric sound from an electromagnetic system? And don't get me started on how some people think you can store music on vinyl - it's a cheap plastic, for Fred's sake! Some spotty-faced propeller heads have even proposed some silly synthetic thing using two separate channels to confuse your ears and create an artificial illusion of "space". Even the name gives the game away - "stereo-phoney", as in fraud!
I still think the most absurd idea is the "magnetic tape", where you not only use cheap plastic, but you then coat it with "ferric oxide" - a fancy name for rusty iron! If you can't hear the horrible graininess from those rust particles, you either have ears totally blocked by wax, or are using one of those crappy japanese "transistor radios" as your listening system.
The people fanatically defending that horrible electric sound probably haven't ever been in the same room as a proper, modern Edison Phonograph. I am also sure their dress sense is abysmal and their personal hygiene is lacking.
Unhappily my LPs are not frozen in time - every time I play them they get some damage. I try to keep it minimal, and I am not worried about it, but it is part of the mechanical readout system.
More seriously, we are having real improvements in turntables, tonearms, cartridges and and RIAA phono units. This has translated in better sound reproduction coming from existing LPs. I have no reason to believe that this continuous progress stopped yesterday.
Anyway it is nice to know that you also consider that digital is advancing - some people in WBF believe that it stopped in the late 80's.
Last edited:
I have seen many justifications for the poor sound of early CDs. However, my main concern is with the majority of not early CDs as well - if the LP pressing has good quality I prefer the old LP most of the time for similar reasons referred in the previous Shaffer post.
Should we believe that 16/44.1 is perfect and that 30 years were not enough for a new generation of sound engineers to learn how to master digital?
BTW, I consider CD perfectly acceptable for sound reproduction - I listen most of the time to it, as I only have access to most music I want to listen in this format. Something that amazes me is the large difference existing between sound quality of playback equipment of the 90s and the current top equipment.
Similar threads
