AMIRM It is clear you realize my request for a book was tongue in cheek. Should I desire to become expert on digital recording playback I'll do my own research and seek help when I hit the wall. Thanks for offering. You might imagine because I am the freedom saving business I save my real skills for that job. I will take advantage of the link you provided.
The State Of Analog
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
Here is the thing about writing technical books: the pay is worse that slavery. I wrote one once, it took me two years to do justice to it (hate it when people create bibles full of screen snapshots and rehash of software manuals) only to make $8K out of it for royalties.
I hear you on that one. My book took me the best part of four years to write, and although I made a bit more than $8K in royalties, it wasn't much more. A great experience, but not one I'm in a hurry to repeat!
You said that since digital involves sampling, something is missing. I pointed out that at every step of analog recording, editing, copying and playback involves imperfection. You missed the point.
> It is a common technique nowadays to switch terminoly to strip something of its previous negative
> connotations....
Irrelevant to the discussion. You don't understand the concepts of digital audio or the vocabulary.
> Digital in its current format remains a flawed medium.
> Its' faults lies not only in its design but also in its execution.
By now you have established that you are completely incompetent to decide whether digital audio is flawed by design. Stick to saying that you listened and didn't like what you heard.
> Audiophiles have lamented the shortcomings of digital ab intio.
Some audiophiles. Far more were really happy to be done with the problems of turntables and LPs.
> OTOH some seem to think digital is good enough and sat on thier laurels or even too good and are > headed in the other direction.
All sorts of people have contributed to progress in designing and fabricating electronics. Other people have contributed to progress in firmware and software. Digital audio in 2010 is a different world that it was in 2000, 1990 or 1985. What part of that progress do we owe to high-end audio? Almost none.
> I am sure AMIRM is a honest hard worker.
What a condescending remark!
> I am sure he knows it's results that count.
And as I suggested, people at Microsoft have spent a great deal of time verifying that lossless compress does indeed give back the original contents without change. You missed the point again.
> Those who are so concerned about my digital education might consider this potentially profitable
> exercise. Write a book called Digital Recording and Playback for DUMMIES. I would buy it.
Until you do know something about digital audio, how about holding the pronouncements that "digital audio is flawed by design."
> P.S. Let's try to remember this is a hobby and we are suppose to have fun here. Let's try
> to leave the nasty politics to CNN, MSNBC and FOX.
You have been talking trash in this thread and you got called on it. Your posts are full of scorn for everything digital and of the people who contributed to its development. I find that mix of ignorance and scorn to be unacceptable.
Bill
We just can't seem to get past the digital vs. analog debate. It keeps cropping up in thread after thread. Since neither side is going to gain any converts and concede any ground, I think we should declare a truce and move on. Mabye the forum needs to have some new ground rules for threads and we need to have some clear analog sections and digital sections. Those that love digital can stay on their side of the playground and those that love analog can stay on their side of the playground. If you want to venture over to the other side's playground and see what is going on-fine. Just don't post any nasty crap about how their playground sucks. If we could all play by those rules, maybe this would be a friendlier place to hang out. Things are getting a bit mean lately and nothing good is coming from it.
Bill:
I think you're confusing the general public and audiophiles. Hell if it was just audiophiles switching to digital, CDs would have flopped. I'd say 80+% of the general population switched over to digital; these are the same people who use a Bose wave radio
Among audiophiles, however, I'd bet that 1/3 totally dropped their analog playback, 1/3 use both mediums and 1/3 solely use analog. I think this, if it's a statistically significant slice, is born out by different Stereophile online surveys.
Old Listener. What a perfect monicker. I suggest more prune juice and rouhfage in your diet. I have followed digital form it's inception. I am not applying for a job as resident digtal expert. Digital is flawed. Insulting me will not change that. Can I go now?
I used the material in your own posts. Feel free to be insulted by your own ignorance.
Bill
Last edited:
perhaps a different definition of audiophile
I didn't associate CD sales with the number of audiophiles who switched from vinyl to CDs.
I don't think that I was confusing audiophiles with the general public. I probably have a different definition of audiophiles than you do. Lots of people bought home theater systems to replace their two channel systems - vinyl and/or CDs. Some home theater buyers aren't that interested in audio only listening. However, many of them do listen to music and appreciate good sound. Younger people may have bought a home theater system without ever having a good 2 channel system.
Even younger people are building systems around iPods and computer based playback. For many audiophiles, a headphone based system is a cost effective way to good sound.
I'd count all those people who appreciate good sound and bought something you might call mid-fi to get good sound at a price they could afford.
Companies like PSB and Paradigm sell speakers for 2 channel and home theater systems. Companies like Audioengine make speakers for computer based playback as well as normal 2 channel system use. There is a set of companies making receivers and amplifiers at corresponding price levels. I think these companies are selling products in volumes that dwarf most of high-end audio.
I think the broader your definition of audiophile is, the larger the fraction who have moved away from turntables and vinyl. In that broader world, perhaps only a fraction read Stereophile or any other high-end magazine regularly.
Bill
Bill:
I think you're confusing the general public and audiophiles. Hell if it was just audiophiles switching to digital, CDs would have flopped. I'd say 80+% of the general population switched over to digital; these are the same people who use a Bose wave radio
Among audiophiles, however, I'd bet that 1/3 totally dropped their analog playback, 1/3 use both mediums and 1/3 solely use analog. I think this, if it's a statistically significant slice, is born out by different Stereophile online surveys.
I didn't associate CD sales with the number of audiophiles who switched from vinyl to CDs.
I don't think that I was confusing audiophiles with the general public. I probably have a different definition of audiophiles than you do. Lots of people bought home theater systems to replace their two channel systems - vinyl and/or CDs. Some home theater buyers aren't that interested in audio only listening. However, many of them do listen to music and appreciate good sound. Younger people may have bought a home theater system without ever having a good 2 channel system.
Even younger people are building systems around iPods and computer based playback. For many audiophiles, a headphone based system is a cost effective way to good sound.
I'd count all those people who appreciate good sound and bought something you might call mid-fi to get good sound at a price they could afford.
Companies like PSB and Paradigm sell speakers for 2 channel and home theater systems. Companies like Audioengine make speakers for computer based playback as well as normal 2 channel system use. There is a set of companies making receivers and amplifiers at corresponding price levels. I think these companies are selling products in volumes that dwarf most of high-end audio.
I think the broader your definition of audiophile is, the larger the fraction who have moved away from turntables and vinyl. In that broader world, perhaps only a fraction read Stereophile or any other high-end magazine regularly.
Bill
Bill
How true. You must have kids the same age as me. My 24 yo son thinks the way I listen is a thing of the past. He has everything on Mac based server with a pair of M-Audio bookshelf monitors that are very impressive
Bill is correct in what he says, the audiophile of yesterday is a different breed than the audiophile of today.
How true. You must have kids the same age as me. My 24 yo son thinks the way I listen is a thing of the past. He has everything on Mac based server with a pair of M-Audio bookshelf monitors that are very impressive
Bill is correct in what he says, the audiophile of yesterday is a different breed than the audiophile of today.
MHO - A good place to start would be to ask the subjectivists to stop invading the more science-based forums to argue with the grownups, or if you want to get more specific, stop bringing the "vinyl is superior in spite of its bad measurements" debate to the "Digital" forum. It's trolling, and the prime perpetrators are "mods" for pity's sake. I came here because it was started by a guy who seems to truly understand and appreciate digital audio, because the place has the foresight to offer dedicated forums to people like Sean Olive, Ethan Winer and Earl Geddes, because I had every reason to believe it was a reality-based audiophile forum. Yet it appears that I will have to either accept misunderstanding, misinformation and unsupported opinion as fact silently, or be insulted for not rolling over. And the worst offenders are MODS!
I don't roll over well, so I think I'll go silent on this subject for awhile, and hope whoever it is that moderates the mods can get this playhouse under control.
P
Ah....the old time-honored "made you look" defense. I'm sure that's a big winner in court, counselor.
P
I don't use tricks in court. You are thinking of telvision. And that I hope is the last word.
Guys, we are working on creating a better forum for debates. For now, please don't kill each other .
.
I am ashamed of the discourse occurring in this thread. Both "camps" are guilty of personal attacks and useless bickering.
The science behind digital audio is irrefutable. The implementation of same has still not reached its zenith IMO. Arguments extolling the scientific virtues of digital are tired and stale, since that's not the issue as I see it.
The limitations of analog storage media are also well-understood. Despite its limitations, many audiophiles love the way analog sounds.
Nobody from either camp will "convert" the members of the other side. Therefore, this discussion ends up being a waste of bandwidth and needless aggravation for all.
Nobody knows everything about both media; this fact is certainly demonstrated here.
Perhaps we should shift the discussion to the various methods that members have used to maximize the performance of their gear, both analog and digital.
I.E. 1. How does one go about maximizing performance when using computer hard drive storage and an external DAC? There has been a ton of discussion re: USB vs. SP/DIF vs. FireWire, etc.
2. How does one evaluate phono cartridge loading to achieve best performance?
3. Which music player software works best with PC? With Mac? With high-res files?
4. What are the most favored methods of record storage and cleaning?
I hope everyone understands why focusing on this type of discussion would be more constructive. I'm actually a moderator for the music and Blu-Ray sections, but the posts in these discussions compelled me to speak my mind about the disappointing level of collegiality on display.
Let's play nice, lest we lose this place.
Lee
The science behind digital audio is irrefutable. The implementation of same has still not reached its zenith IMO. Arguments extolling the scientific virtues of digital are tired and stale, since that's not the issue as I see it.
The limitations of analog storage media are also well-understood. Despite its limitations, many audiophiles love the way analog sounds.
Nobody from either camp will "convert" the members of the other side. Therefore, this discussion ends up being a waste of bandwidth and needless aggravation for all.
Nobody knows everything about both media; this fact is certainly demonstrated here.
Perhaps we should shift the discussion to the various methods that members have used to maximize the performance of their gear, both analog and digital.
I.E. 1. How does one go about maximizing performance when using computer hard drive storage and an external DAC? There has been a ton of discussion re: USB vs. SP/DIF vs. FireWire, etc.
2. How does one evaluate phono cartridge loading to achieve best performance?
3. Which music player software works best with PC? With Mac? With high-res files?
4. What are the most favored methods of record storage and cleaning?
I hope everyone understands why focusing on this type of discussion would be more constructive. I'm actually a moderator for the music and Blu-Ray sections, but the posts in these discussions compelled me to speak my mind about the disappointing level of collegiality on display.
Let's play nice, lest we lose this place.
Lee
as Amir said, every one take a deep breath as we are working on (hopefully) a better way for these no win debates
audiophiles of various times
No kids. Just observation of what's going on around me.
I asked a few casual survey questions on an audiophile (digital) forum over a year ago. The answers have some interesting themes:
- Most of the guys were not using a PC for audio playback for various reasons.
- Some of their wives were already buying music on the iTunes Music Store and transferring it
to their iPods and iPhones. No big deal for the wives.
- Their kids just jumped into the PC audio/ITMS/iPod world effortlessly.
I was somewhat amused by the idea of wife and kids leaving audiophile dad behind.
---
A comment about the audiophiles of yesterday. I started in the mid-late 60s and early 70s. As an undergrad and then a graduate student, I didn't have much money so getting AR-4x speakers was an advancement. As I was able, I got a bit better stuff. However, I didn't get to the Marantz / McIntosh level. I have a bit more money now but there are always too many things to spend it on. And the prices for gear offend my 60s-70s sense of value.
At heart, I'm still a 60s - early 70s HiFi / Stereo kind of audiophile. Most of the audiophile gear I was interested in back then would be dismissed as mid-fi by many of the audiophiles on this forum.
I think your yesterday is more recent than mine.
Bill
No kids. Just observation of what's going on around me.
I asked a few casual survey questions on an audiophile (digital) forum over a year ago. The answers have some interesting themes:
- Most of the guys were not using a PC for audio playback for various reasons.
- Some of their wives were already buying music on the iTunes Music Store and transferring it
to their iPods and iPhones. No big deal for the wives.
- Their kids just jumped into the PC audio/ITMS/iPod world effortlessly.
I was somewhat amused by the idea of wife and kids leaving audiophile dad behind.
---
A comment about the audiophiles of yesterday. I started in the mid-late 60s and early 70s. As an undergrad and then a graduate student, I didn't have much money so getting AR-4x speakers was an advancement. As I was able, I got a bit better stuff. However, I didn't get to the Marantz / McIntosh level. I have a bit more money now but there are always too many things to spend it on. And the prices for gear offend my 60s-70s sense of value.
At heart, I'm still a 60s - early 70s HiFi / Stereo kind of audiophile. Most of the audiophile gear I was interested in back then would be dismissed as mid-fi by many of the audiophiles on this forum.
I think your yesterday is more recent than mine.
Bill
