More Format Wars?

[tailspn]

Seems to me that the best use for digital is to notch out 3k to get rid of sibilance.

Maybe that's why LP's and tape sound good to you?

 

[Groucho]

You're kidding right? Care to share what you're smoking? I think that listening to all that early digital destroyed your hearing. Puhleeze.

FYI it's all documented.

www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf?

Nippon Columbia, known outside of Japan primarily by its Denon brand, was both a major music-recording company and an equipment manufacturer. Its record company by the late 1960s was investigating how to improve LP sound quality, and criticism centered on distortions caused by analog tape recorders. Denon was a pioneer in the revival of direct-to-disc recording, and Denon engineers visited and collaborated with NHK's PCM pioneers. Denon's stated purpose: "To produce recordings that were not compromised by the weaknesses of magnetic tape recorder."

http://arpjournal.com/2140/soundstr...rcial-digital-recording-in-the-united-states/

Through its relationships with Telarc and other classical labels, Soundstream was able to field test its recorder under real world conditions. Evidently, clients within the sound recording and music industries will not typically allow a prototype recorder to become the primary recording system without rigorous testing. In this case, the Soundstream recorder was tested as a backup solution with the opportunity to make comparisons with the analogue master recordings after the fact. In many cases, the Soundstream recordings eventually became the primary masters used for release either because of their fidelity, or in some cases, because of their durability.

So apart from the linear tracking tone arm that never seems to have caught on (it was irony BTW), can you give a brief summary of the latest technological improvements in the vinyl world?

 

[Julf]

You're kidding right? Care to share what you're smoking? I think that listening to all that early digital destroyed your hearing. Puhleeze.

Myles, I don't usually comment on people's personal issues, but you might want to look into anger management or talk to a proper psychotherapist.

 

[rockitman]

Sounds like this thread has outlived it's useful life...

 

[Groucho]

Sounds like this thread has outlived it's useful life...

I'd still like to know about the DRM aspects. I see that Meridian already has its own encrypted format, so maybe all they have to do is to convert PONO into this format to distribute it to all their current systems.

Meridian High Resolution (MHR)
Digital audio signals are, by their nature, repetitive, and this repetition can produce unwanted artefacts in the sound. MHR was developed to ‘scramble’ the signal so those cycles were inaudible, making clock signals easier to recover accurately and reducing artefacts. It also provides a form of encryption for moving digital signals securely from one component in a system to another, and as a result it was the first system approved by content producers for transferring audio digitally within a home audio system – previously this had to be done in the analogue domain, reducing quality.

 

[microstrip]

This entire discussion is conflating sound quality of various formats with mastering techniques. IMO, there is no real sound quality measure, objective or subjective in any studio recording cited here, only preferences. And how they're reproduced is the same measure, purely a preference.

Only a natural acoustic environment recording, without post processing other than editing, and with the express intent of capturing and reproducing the acoustic event AND environment has any measure of judging sound quality. They can be referenced back to one's experience of that instrument/group in a live environment. All the rest is simply audio art. Mastering techniques aimed at creating a sound where without that mastering art, none could exist. There's no reference-able content back to an original, since the original doesn't exist.

Surely. But we always go in this confusing direction in this subject because poor mastering is the official excuse for the poorer perceived quality of the great majority of jazz and old rock CDs when compared with the corresponding LPs played in SOTA systems. However we can consider that if we analyze the preferences of many people and understand them we can get some information - in sound reproduction it is believed that the majority of people prefer better sound quality.

 

[amirm]

Guys, please make your comments less personal.

 

[Groucho]

However we can consider that if we analyze the preferences of many people and understand them we can get some information - in sound reproduction it is believed that the majority of people prefer better sound quality.

It may be that the majority of people will tell you that from their experience horoscopes really work, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[rockitman]

Originally Posted by tomelex
of course rbcd is not high resolution, no more than LP is high resolution. The thing is, digital is advancing and LP is frozen in time. LP = no more resolution nor advancement.


Care to enlighten me on whats new in vinyl record technology, that is a technological achievement, other than purer vinyl about 25 years ago?

With few exceptions, the TT's are better, the carts are better, the tone arms are better and the phonostages are indeed better. The vinyl listening experience continues to get better despite those who still have their heads stuck in the digital sand.

 

[microstrip]

It may be that the majority of people will tell you that from their experience horoscopes really work, but it doesn't make it so.

It is why my sentence I said in sound reproduction.. I usually do not spend my time commenting horoscopes.

(...) However we can consider that if we analyze the preferences of many people and understand them we can get some information - in sound reproduction it is believed that the majority of people prefer better sound quality.

 

[microstrip]

FYI it's all documented.

www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf?


http://arpjournal.com/2140/soundstr...rcial-digital-recording-in-the-united-states/

It is a pity that such a fine paper on the Dawn of Commercial Recording gets involved in this dispute and a quotation from the Introduction "Pre-Dawn: Denon Introduces Music to Digital" is abusively being presented as conclusive and meaningful in this debate. The paper is an historical research on digital recording, full of anecdotal evidence and I will read in full soon.

What would you conclude if someone abusively quoted " "there is a subtlety of stereo depth, clarity of pitch, and effortlessness to the sound using the analog transfer that doesn't come across with the direct digital interpolation." He added: "I have no idea why this would be the case, but if you are listening on a high enough quality playback system you can hear the difference quite clearly." ? I can assure you that the paper was not meaning what you think - I just quoted it to make you curious about reading it - it deserves to be read. All just MHO.

 

[mep]

It is a pity that such a fine paper on the Dawn of Commercial Recording gets involved in this dispute and a quotation from the Introduction "Pre-Dawn: Denon Introduces Music to Digital" is abusively being presented as conclusive and meaningful in this debate. The paper is an historical research on digital recording, full of anecdotal evidence and I will read in full soon.

What would you conclude if someone abusively quoted " "there is a subtlety of stereo depth, clarity of pitch, and effortlessness to the sound using the analog transfer that doesn't come across with the direct digital interpolation." He added: "I have no idea why this would be the case, but if you are listening on a high enough quality playback system you can hear the difference quite clearly." ? I can assure you that the paper was not meaning what you think - I just quoted it to make you curious about reading it - it deserves to be read. All just MHO.

I read the paper and found the above part that Fransisco pasted to be very interesting too. And the much ballyhooed first recordings from Soundstream obviously couldn't have been that good because Telarc told Soundstream to go back and increase the sampling rate because there was too much high frequency information missing at the sampling rate they were using. The direct to disk story is sketchy at best and there is no certainty that a direct to disc session ever happened.

 

[microstrip]

Hmmm, let me think, great early CD's ... how about Famous Blue Raincoat (87) and Tracy Chapmans 88 premier. If memory serves, I think both are based on 16 bit original masters. The LP versions were critically acclaimed by media and audiophiles alike. Many audiophiles didn't realize (or care) that they were grooving to 16bit on LP. Hell, they used to play these "LPs" at all the trade shows!!!

tb1

I prefer by a wide margin the original analog version of Famous Blue Raincoat released in 1971. I find that the digital version released in 1987 does not sound as good as the first one, mainly the voice - digital makes it effeminate - and destroys most of the emotional content of the recording. All IMH preference.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Guys, please make your comments less personal.

That's a tough one in this old fight, Amir. Of course this thread didn't even begin as a digital/analog debate. There was nothing about analog in it. It was, rather, a civil conversation about digital formats, then a sidebar, still very civil, questioning whether or not mastering might actually be more important than format. That solicited this response:

Myles:
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

.

Which was immediately followed-up with this one:

mep:
Well golly gee Wally, the Nyquist theorem says it perfect. Somebody pass Myles the digital Kool Aid.

It was headed south from there. You probably should have shut it down around page 2.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Analog is great, digital is great.

Now, digital; what's best? :b ...MP3 or Pono? ...And not "Phono".

 

[mep]

Lot's of threads on this forum eventually devolve into digital vs. analog food fights and this one was no exception. Tim, you left out where the brawl started and it started before your quote from Myles and me that you posted above.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Lot's of threads on this forum eventually devolve into digital vs. analog food fights and this one was no exception. Tim, you left out where the brawl started and it started before your quote from Myles and me that you posted above.

I just re-read up to the point of Myles' post I quoted above. I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Tim

 

[rockitman]

BTW, if one does not have a linear tracking turntable, then one does not have state of the art TT. Linear tracking addresses tangency of the needle to the groove and anti-skating and overhang adjustments and the attendent several percent distortion generated in a fixed pivot system. .

LOL, each design has it's pluses and minuses...Radial arms are better now. You really have zero credibility in the discussion as I imagine your last personal turntable experience was in the late 70's perhaps ? No matter, get back to specs. Specs tell us what sounds good and what does not, correct ? I understand your logic. It doesn't work for me. Regards.

 

[MylesBAstor]

LOL, each design has it's pluses and minuses...Radial arms are better now. You really have zero credibility in the discussion as I imagine your last personal turntable experience was in the late 70's perhaps ? No matter, get back to specs. Specs tell us what sounds good and what does not, correct ? I understand your logic. It doesn't work for me. Regards.

Christian is spot on. Not to mention which type of linear tracking arm.

 

[rockitman]

Incorrect!

But since you brought it up, are there any published specs on your TT?

..also, my personal experience with a TT (its in my profile) does not alter the mechanics and physics of vinyl reproduction in terms of getting every bit of information from the groove with the least amount of distortion, does it?

Put TechDAS or Clearaudio Master Innovation in google and you can read the specs.