Paul McGowan Prefers Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
Peter, I am not really a dealer any longer. I import and distribute Gobel High End Speakers and Cables and I needed electronics to drive them so after I did my due diligence I fell in love with CH and bought it. I am a dealer for them since it made sense.
Having that out of the way I a have expressed my personal choices before but I am happy to explain. I have nothing against analog but it is not for me any longer at this time of my life UNLESS I end of importing something in the future. My listening is based around 7-8 TB of music stored on a computer( sonic transporter). I do not enjoy the religious experience in finding, cleaning and playing an LP. Its way to much effort for me. I have a hour or two almost everyday that I listen to my system and I love sitting in a dark room with my cell as a Roon remote and exploring my music and new music. I started a "list" on my website on which I post things I like and it continues to grow.
Personally after doing shows and having a store I am sick of listening to the same old stuff on LPS that people bring around. How many re-issues of the same old stuff can you buy and listen too? I personally am not sure most of them are even better. Again my choice but I love the music way more than I love the gear.
Many manufacturers use digital since it is the same every time unlike analog. Its repeatable and consistent. I personally don't know how one finds new music with LP's. I can use Tidal and Now Qobuz to just explore anything I want and if I like it I can download it or just stream it if I like. My friends both have big systems with dCS, MSB etc and we all trade music and suggestions. For me its great. Much of the music I love is from the 60'-70's and I don't have the records nor could I easily find them. Some folks love exploring used record stores me I prefer playing golf or Poker.
Lastly I do not believe the divide is as many make it out to be. There are great sounds emanating FROM both however I made my choice and I am happy and content with it. I really don't understand why Paul's decision is such a big deal its his choice and I don't really need to know his reasons. To me its a non- issue, just his choice.
Thanks Elliot. I was more interested in dealers commenting on the notion that Paul put forward about most systems being optimized for one particular format. I understand that you are now digital only and you have explained the reasons very well. I respect that. Paul would have us believe that your component choices are based on a digital source first and foremost. To me, it sounds as if you liked Gobel speakers and cables and then matched the CH Precision gear to those speakers. And this is how I had presumed all dealers and audiophiles make decisions until I read what Paul wrote.
at the top of the hifi system food chain the system does not care what source you feed it. it will demand the best possible source performance, and will expose anything less. but i don't think that top level 'source' performance is limited to one brand, or one format. it's a reasonably wide space.
i heard Elliot's system both at RMAF and then in his South Florida showroom some months later. at RMAF Elliot had the top of line CH phono stage along with the same level digital, and at his showroom i heard only the digital. the analog sounded as synergistic as the digital at RMAF. i got no feeling that that system favored one format or the other.
OTOH there is no doubt that Elliot favors his music through the digital format as it meets his needs better.
for me; i would not say i favor digital, but it more works for my energy allocation these days. i'm not always in the mood for analog. but when i am in the mood for analog, it does take me farther. and while that is no longer important to Elliot or his friends he mentions, it is to me.
i heard Elliot's system both at RMAF and then in his South Florida showroom some months later. at RMAF Elliot had the top of line CH phono stage along with the same level digital, and at his showroom i heard only the digital. the analog sounded as synergistic as the digital at RMAF. i got no feeling that that system favored one format or the other.
OTOH there is no doubt that Elliot favors his music through the digital format as it meets his needs better.
for me; i would not say i favor digital, but it more works for my energy allocation these days. i'm not always in the mood for analog. but when i am in the mood for analog, it does take me farther. and while that is no longer important to Elliot or his friends he mentions, it is to me.
Thanks guys. That is as I suspected all along. To me, Paul's comment about the source format dictating the rest of system is the most surprising aspect of Ron's whole exchange with him. Thank you for explicitly sharing your opinions on this specific subject.
No, many people assemble the system and then go on changing the source forever trying to match the system and room ...
Things are never exactly black and white, but there is a lot of wisdom and experience in Paul words.
or.....you find or build the right room, add gear with broad capabilities, and then sort out the issues until the room is essentially neutral. all just common sense steps and one's many of us have done....varying by degrees.
no reason any good source should not work in that situation.
the source is the 'sauce' in this approach, and no doubt we all have different tastes and prefer different sauces. but if your room, gear and set-up are not neutral then you are right, it's chasing your tail. the system should reveal the truth of the source. if it does not then there is work to do. the less neutral your system, the narrower the sweet spot of the musical capabilities. the more neutral the system, the broader the musical capabilities.
We are moving away from the main point of Paul and what I was addressing - digital and analog have different needs of system and room.
Since long I find most debates involving neutrality a never ending route - subjective neutrality is a real mare. Each of us has its definition of neutrality, according to his preference, manily because most people want to have neutral equipment. For example, I do not consider the Darts, or any of my amplifiers or even the cables neutral. High-end equipment is intrinsically flavored - and fortunately, we pay a lot for its flavor.
People want to address the digital versus analog without referring to technical aspects that are fundamental to understand their differences in stereo sound reproduction - it is almost impossible IMHO.
Respectfully, I don’t think people are moving away from your main point; I think people simply are disagreeing with you.
I, personally, do not think it makes any sense that digital and analog have different room needs, or different loudspeaker needs or different amplifier needs.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Once a digital signal reaches an interconnect/speaker cable.... it becomes an analog signal... it's exactly the same!!
Same with a sound wave that reaches your ear. They are exactly the same!
Same with a sound wave that reaches your ear. They are exactly the same!
Respectfully, you do not have significant experience with the best of modern digital equipment and digital recordings, I do not expect my points to make sense to you.
We are not addressing the signals, we are addressing recording media with very different capabilities - would you record using multi-track tape the same way as using multi-track digital? Do you carry mastering the same way for vinyl or digital?
But Paul’s whole point was he thought analog was colored compared to digital. So if you pick a colored speaker or a amplifier..don’t you add coloration upon coloration?
If Paul is correct that digital is more neutral wouldn’t you want to select more neutral components to your system.
This is probably harder to do given preferences, but I can see his logic.
If Paul is correct that digital is more neutral wouldn’t you want to select more neutral components to your system.
This is probably harder to do given preferences, but I can see his logic.
Treating room differently: I can't see how this is valid.
Treating signal chain differently: ok so far as upstream of amp. Afterwards I'm not sure how much I can subscribe to this.
Comparing playback limitations to mastering limitations: limited value imo (and I used to own a vinyl mastering studio). Please compare playback limitations of two mediums.
Treating signal chain differently: ok so far as upstream of amp. Afterwards I'm not sure how much I can subscribe to this.
Comparing playback limitations to mastering limitations: limited value imo (and I used to own a vinyl mastering studio). Please compare playback limitations of two mediums.
Digital has a lower theoretical noise floor hence greater dynamic range. So it's better. Carry on...
When I want to scratch my chin and think about lowest lows and highest highs, biggest crescendo and quietest background I spool up some digital.
When I want to enjoy music, relate to the artist, remember an epic night out, tear up a little, I spin a record.
But I've never been one to say what's best.
It all sounds like with a blue ceiling a good matching floor would be marble white and the couch velour marine. With a TT I'd stay farther away from the loudspeakers/subwoofers. And I'd like to match my TT and tape deck (R2R) with mono tube amps, and the best phono stage.
With a digital source (SACD/CD/hi-res music server), I'd like neutral smooth midrange and tweeter from my speakers.
With analog sources I want the most resolute midrange and tweeter drivers and a lower point x-over with a gentler slope.
@ the end it's our own unique musical journey, just like living life and choosing a soul mate.
It's like the love between a dog and his best friend.
The more resolute the system the closer to the live event.
This analog/digital interaction is a personal experience. The matching components the same.
One room, two rooms...whatever rocks the boat of the listener. Same with acoustic room treatments.
Something around there because we're swimming around in circles chased by the whales and sharks. We're just too complicated and not taking this life simple enough.
I just listened to Édith Piaf few minutes ago; should I have listened from the CD?
It was much more natural and impacting from the LP. ...Everything, I think, I was feeling.
It's like a picture frame with an old oil painting inside, it's worth a thousand words.
With a digital source (SACD/CD/hi-res music server), I'd like neutral smooth midrange and tweeter from my speakers.
With analog sources I want the most resolute midrange and tweeter drivers and a lower point x-over with a gentler slope.
@ the end it's our own unique musical journey, just like living life and choosing a soul mate.
It's like the love between a dog and his best friend.
The more resolute the system the closer to the live event.
This analog/digital interaction is a personal experience. The matching components the same.
One room, two rooms...whatever rocks the boat of the listener. Same with acoustic room treatments.
Something around there because we're swimming around in circles chased by the whales and sharks. We're just too complicated and not taking this life simple enough.
I just listened to Édith Piaf few minutes ago; should I have listened from the CD?
It was much more natural and impacting from the LP. ...Everything, I think, I was feeling.
It's like a picture frame with an old oil painting inside, it's worth a thousand words.
Your points makes sense to me, I simply disagree with them. I disagree with them on a theoretical basis, whether the source is digital or vinyl or tape. And I disagree with them on a practical basis, not on the basis of my personal digital experience (which I readily admit is nearly nil), but on the vicarious basis of MikeLs vast comparative experience with all source media.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Similar threads
