Black is pure. Neutral. It may be bitter, but it is naturally so. If you want it sweeter or you want to change the flavor, add cream and sugar.
Too Late For Analog?
- Thread starter BFlowers
- Start date
I have a friend who is looking at starting a coffee business. Apparently, coffee is not naturally bitter. IIRC, the bitterness comes from how the coffee is roasted. Most places do it at a too high a temperature, resulting in the bitterness. If the beans are roasted at a lower temperature, there's less bitternes, so no need to add cream and sugar. Something like that, anyway. I dunno: I don't drink coffee!
My thought is records are bountiful. The drawback to me is the ridiculous price of a vinyl front end. Playback Designs is a ridiculous $15k. You can pay that for a Koetsu. They sad thing is of course that the Koetsu is not a ripoff. It delivers. OTOH I can kick ass with a $15k digital front end.
Huh? You missed my point entirely or I missed yours and I don't think I missed yours. You were comparing analog to coffee with cream and sugar and digital to black coffee. I told you I didn't care for the analogy since you were portraying digital as pure and analog as flavored which is nonsense. And if your coffee is naturally bitter, you need to upgrade the coffee you drink or throw out your coffee pot and get a good one. Good coffee is not bitter. And like I said before, if you need to use cream and sugar, you are not a real coffee drinker anyway. Speaking of people who don't really like coffee...I buy my beans at Starbucks and lately I have been on a Sumatra kick. Everytime I go to Starbucks, I invariably get stuck behind some woman or metrosexual who orders one of those foo-foo drinks that drive me nuts because they always have a hard time making up their mind on what crap they are going to add to their foo-foo drink. "I will have a moca frappachino with a shot of chocolate and a spritz of fat-free goat milk. No, wait. Make that vannila instead of chocolate. Oh, and what the heck, use regular goat milk." I just want to buy my beans (unground thank-you) and get the hell out of there.
At least Starbucks isn't as bad as the place I used to buy coffee in Bloomington before Starbucks came to town. I used to have to go this place called the Runciple Spoon and buy my coffee. The Runciple Spoon only hired women who were completely weirded out. They all wore sleeveless dresses that look like they came out of the attic from Grandma's steamer trunk. Shoes were usually combat boots. You had to have at least 5 facial piercings and 20 tattoos. Oh, and you couldn't shave your legs or armpits. I always enjoyed it when the girls would lift up the coffee jar to pour my beans out and show their big bush under their armpit. I was always tempted to ask them what crawled in bed with them at night and called them mama.
I didn't miss it at all. Analog is very much akin to the flavor choice of adding cream and sugar, or distorting the original. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not pure. It is adulterated.
Why. Where are the facts? Not subjective taste. Facts. Evidence. Science. How do you suppose vinyl is mastered? Without touching the original at all?
It is indisputable that many prefer the sound of analog. I have said already I have no qualms with that. I have also said that there are many instances of analog mastering being superior to digital.
But don't confuse the message with the medium. It is indisiputable that digital, as a medium, is superior to analog.
A digital recording can sound like anything you want - including an exact and audibly indistinguiashable reproduction of the sound of a vinyl recording, including all the noise, distortion, clicks, pops etc.
A vinyl recording will only sound like digital when the content is such that all the faults are purposefully masked. In other words, you can listen to a digital recording and think you're listening to vinyl; but you can't listen to vinyl and think you're listening to digital.
Therefore digital is superior as a delivery format because it's doesn't impose its own character on the audio.
If we're speaking of the purity of the medium, then "special effects" (i.e., cream and sugar) should be added because people want to, not because they're part of the delivery format.
Otherwise known as a flavor choice.
Too funny!
Ron-Your arguments on why digital is superior to analog are so iron-clad that I just realized what a fool I was for liking analog. As soon as I am done typing this I am putting all of my silly analog gear up for sale and totally switching over to the brilliance of digital.
I'm not aware of anyone suggesting you, or anyone else who prefers the sound of analog gear or the analog medium, is a fool.
Mark, honestly, it is extreme statements like yours that do a disservice toward promoting the truth in music reproduction and to audiophiles in general. On a public forum, shouldn't we strive to reach an intellectual understanding of what is and what is not?
These are not *my* arguments. These are facts. Facts are not subject to personal like or consensus. As I previously stated, don't confuse the message for the medium. If you're going to state that the analog medium is superior, do it based on facts.
For example, a person might prefer the euphonic sound of *some* tube amps. I have no qualms with that. It is a flavor choice. To that person, what he/she hear brings him/her the most satisfaction. But nobody would legitimately suggest that that particular euphonic sound was the *truth*, only that it was his/her truth.
Mark, honestly, it is extreme statements like yours that do a disservice toward promoting the truth in music reproduction and to audiophiles in general. On a public forum, shouldn't we strive to reach an intellectual understanding of what is and what is not?
These are not *my* arguments. These are facts. Facts are not subject to personal like or consensus. As I previously stated, don't confuse the message for the medium. If you're going to state that the analog medium is superior, do it based on facts.
For example, a person might prefer the euphonic sound of *some* tube amps. I have no qualms with that. It is a flavor choice. To that person, what he/she hear brings him/her the most satisfaction. But nobody would legitimately suggest that that particular euphonic sound was the *truth*, only that it was his/her truth.
Statements like what?? I am not the one who stood up on a soap box and said it is fact that digital is superior to analog. Where are you getting this from? I was just making a joke and saying that your arguments or "facts" were so compelling that I was going to sell my analog gear. Where do your "facts" come from? I for one never new that analog surrendered to digital as being a better sounding medium. And I know of no one who wishes their analog recordings sounded like digital.
Here are some digital facts I would agree with:
1. Digital is easier to use than analog (look ma, no hands)
2. Digital has less noise than analog
I can't think of any other facts at the moment that I would agree to with regards to digital being superior to analog. I don't see the vaunted dymanic range of digital being realized in commercial recordings and I find that analog has the superior real world dynamic range. The most important thing to me is which one comes closest to sounding like real live music and for the here and now, all facts aside, I think that analog sounds more like real music than digital does.
So anyway, I didn't make any "extreme" statements. I think you did that with all of your "facts." The only difference is that I didn't get my shorts bunched up in a knot like you did. It's all good bro. You need to sit down, pop in a CD or scan your computer files and hit play and relax as your digits play over your SS gear.
Well that is the point of having an honest discussion on a forum such as this. Many people don't know. One should read JAES. One should look at measurements of these media. These articles and measurements are readily available if you care to read or look. The measurements are not subject to personal taste.
You mentioned lower noise. That is true. The noise floor of digital is between 30 to 40 dB lower. What is filling that missing 30-40 dB is a sonic signature one may prefer (taste), but it also demonstrates just one aspect of the inferiority of vinyl as a medium. The *real world dynamic range* or *perceived dynamic range* as it is sometimes called, is easily disproved. Vinyl has about 12 bits of resolution on a good day. When music fades, in analog it fades into the hiss (tape) or surface noise (vinyl). With a CD, music fades are going to finish in either the acoustical noise floor of the listening room or the acoustical noise floor of the recording space. Real world most certainly is the latter.
BTW, in that real world there are digital recordings (of music, not test tones) you can purchase with over 80dB of dynamic range.
If you decide to pursue this further, you will find, e.g. the LP distortion spectra for L-R (vertical) and L+R (horizontal) modulation of the groove, particularly while playing the loudest part of the music.
You will discover, e.g., the generational loss inherent in analog media, including two track, high speed tape, but completely absent in digital.
I have never posted the gear I use to listen to music. It is irrelevant to the discussion. What I prefer to listen to is a matter of taste. The media I listen to have certain properties. These properties don't change based on my preference. I know plenty of people who prefer even compressed digital over analog. (And, BTW, don't for a second believe analog cannot be compressed either; it can and has been.)
Digital formats have quantifiable audio reproduction capabilities. Given a sufficient number of bits, these capabilities are verifiably (both objectively through measurements and subjectively through blind-testing (CD can reproduce the sound of vinyl, but not vice-versa)) superior to what analog formats are capable of reproducing.
Mark, you may decide not to research the matter. That's OK by me. But others reading this thread may be interested.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
And Ron, I suppose if I buy the books which explain the facts on why digital is superior to analog that somehow I would convince myself it is so and start enjoying digital. For the here and now, digital to me is like having an organ transplant without anti-rejection drugs-it just won't take. And I would bet money that your stereo system is all solid state. Why, because the measurement facts tell us that solid state is superior to tubes and is perfect like digital. Based on your soap box digital fact rants, I don't think you would settle for anything less than SS/Digital perfection in your system. I hope you really enjoy those perfect 1s and 0s playing through S/S gear because it really sounds good to you and not because theory and facts tell you it should sound better than analog.
I actually look foward to the day when digital will sound better than analog, not just outperform it on paper. Despite all of your facts, that day is not here yet and there is certainly no universal acceptance of the superiority of digital over analog in high-end sound reproduction. And that's a fact.
I actually look foward to the day when digital will sound better than analog, not just outperform it on paper. Despite all of your facts, that day is not here yet and there is certainly no universal acceptance of the superiority of digital over analog in high-end sound reproduction. And that's a fact.
Last edited:
Maybe. A recent poll revealed about 25% of the population on this planet still believe the sun revolves around the earth.
Doubtful. Blind listening tests would be interesting, though, because no number of books you might read could ever eliminate bias.
And you would lose that bet, so let's make it a rather large one. I have my eyes/ears on some major subwoofer upgrades.
Digital is perfect? Hardly.
The "Loudness Wars" has been gaining attention in recent years. What nobody seems to want to talk about is that the abuse of compression and limiting (compression with a ratio of 20:1 and above) is the child of the digital workflow. Once you cross 0dB in a digital recorder you get instant clipping. We all know that. So what are producers and engineers to do to save time hence money? Musicians play louder when the red light is on so unless you go through entire songs recording or with a dummy light, just to catch where the peaks are and by how much they cross over, the easiest way is to have that limiter ready and waiting to smooth out those square waves. Something that can be done in one or two passes.
Try listening to any of Pope Music's minimally mic'ed digital recordings. Pope uses no compression. You'll find out two things. First that no compression is wonderful and second compression is needed. It's needed if you don't want to spend the better part of an hour riding your preamp's remote. This is also a good example of the specs not conforming to reality. In the Pope Music case the dynamic range is sunk below the typical domestic noisefloor. What use is digital black if your room is at 60dB or more with just you and your AC or heater breathing? 24 bits may give 144dB in dynamic range but your doctor will be the first to tell you not to make use of it even if your amps and speakers could handle it. What you get is the other side of the coin. Resolution that still won't match that of physical contact of molecules on molecules. 16 Bit gets you 96dB and pitiful low resolution. Deduct the room's noise floor and add back a third or so of a dB and suddenly the usable dynamic range before compression is less than half of what it is on paper. The city dweller will be lucky to get a third of 16/44.1's dynamic potential. The loudness war starting to make more sense now? I sure hope so because the popular "competing over the airwaves" theory lifted from competing TV's at Costco or Best Buy hot calibration is really an after effect and not the root cause.
LPs always have compression. The coefficient of hardness of the stamper requires it to get the groove written. By nature however LP manufacturing has a couple of built in safety feature against compressor abuse. The cutting engineer's microscope and the QC guy's ears. If you goose the signal into the cutting head the extra output immediately turns into sibilance distortion by overloading the cartridge upon playback. This can be seen on the scope and obviously heard on a test pressing. This is not to say that over compression can not and does not happen at all. It happens when a hot master is sent to the pressing plant instead of the non-cheesed versions always requested by these plants. An example of a very poorly done LP is U2's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Probably the only LP I own where the CD is definitely better if still not great by any standard. The digital master sent to the pressing plant was already highly compressed. I venture to guess that this was so because releasing it on LP was either an after thought or the wrong dub was sent. Incidentally this also partly explains why digitally recorded tracks are, in general, less compressed on LP than their CD brethren.
Then there's tape, tape simply saturates and the distortions are never "hard" sounding.
There are two areas where I will concede that digital is better. Channel Separation and their ability to be copied perfectly. The best you can hope for with vinyl is equal crosstalk via obsessive compulsive, anal retentive azimuth fidgeting. Tape has two discrete signals but azimuth is still important in keeping the tapes on the right heads. No need to talk about copying.
So what about all this talk about flavor? Even if digital was sent by <insert your diety here> to deliver us all from the mediocrity of analog, the loudspeaker alone would flavor it since the perfect loudspeaker has yet to be invented. I say if you're stuck with having to deal with flavors other than vanilla, you might as well roll with it and end up with a sundae you really enjoy.
The "Loudness Wars" has been gaining attention in recent years. What nobody seems to want to talk about is that the abuse of compression and limiting (compression with a ratio of 20:1 and above) is the child of the digital workflow. Once you cross 0dB in a digital recorder you get instant clipping. We all know that. So what are producers and engineers to do to save time hence money? Musicians play louder when the red light is on so unless you go through entire songs recording or with a dummy light, just to catch where the peaks are and by how much they cross over, the easiest way is to have that limiter ready and waiting to smooth out those square waves. Something that can be done in one or two passes.
Try listening to any of Pope Music's minimally mic'ed digital recordings. Pope uses no compression. You'll find out two things. First that no compression is wonderful and second compression is needed. It's needed if you don't want to spend the better part of an hour riding your preamp's remote. This is also a good example of the specs not conforming to reality. In the Pope Music case the dynamic range is sunk below the typical domestic noisefloor. What use is digital black if your room is at 60dB or more with just you and your AC or heater breathing? 24 bits may give 144dB in dynamic range but your doctor will be the first to tell you not to make use of it even if your amps and speakers could handle it. What you get is the other side of the coin. Resolution that still won't match that of physical contact of molecules on molecules. 16 Bit gets you 96dB and pitiful low resolution. Deduct the room's noise floor and add back a third or so of a dB and suddenly the usable dynamic range before compression is less than half of what it is on paper. The city dweller will be lucky to get a third of 16/44.1's dynamic potential. The loudness war starting to make more sense now? I sure hope so because the popular "competing over the airwaves" theory lifted from competing TV's at Costco or Best Buy hot calibration is really an after effect and not the root cause.
LPs always have compression. The coefficient of hardness of the stamper requires it to get the groove written. By nature however LP manufacturing has a couple of built in safety feature against compressor abuse. The cutting engineer's microscope and the QC guy's ears. If you goose the signal into the cutting head the extra output immediately turns into sibilance distortion by overloading the cartridge upon playback. This can be seen on the scope and obviously heard on a test pressing. This is not to say that over compression can not and does not happen at all. It happens when a hot master is sent to the pressing plant instead of the non-cheesed versions always requested by these plants. An example of a very poorly done LP is U2's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Probably the only LP I own where the CD is definitely better if still not great by any standard. The digital master sent to the pressing plant was already highly compressed. I venture to guess that this was so because releasing it on LP was either an after thought or the wrong dub was sent. Incidentally this also partly explains why digitally recorded tracks are, in general, less compressed on LP than their CD brethren.
Then there's tape, tape simply saturates and the distortions are never "hard" sounding.
There are two areas where I will concede that digital is better. Channel Separation and their ability to be copied perfectly. The best you can hope for with vinyl is equal crosstalk via obsessive compulsive, anal retentive azimuth fidgeting. Tape has two discrete signals but azimuth is still important in keeping the tapes on the right heads. No need to talk about copying.
So what about all this talk about flavor? Even if digital was sent by <insert your diety here> to deliver us all from the mediocrity of analog, the loudspeaker alone would flavor it since the perfect loudspeaker has yet to be invented. I say if you're stuck with having to deal with flavors other than vanilla, you might as well roll with it and end up with a sundae you really enjoy.
I've just joined the Forum, so I am making my first comments on this thread. I know many of the particpants in the Forum from other forums and in person and even heard some of their systems. First, I have been collecting records and tapes for almost 50 years - longer than some of you have been alive! I have a nice vinyl setup (about 15K records - almost all classical stereo) and a nice R2R setup (I am a charter member of the Tape Project and have about 500 other R2R tapes). I simply get a lot of pleasure from my system - overwhelming analogue - I would say emotional involvement is for me the key. I also have a completely tube system (Herron Electronics, Cary 2A3 SET amps) and horn speakers (Avantgarde Duos) for my 2 channel system.
However, I am currently really enjoying blu-ray opera (digital of course) played through my Oppo Nuforce Edition, and my 5.1 setup, which adds 3 Avantgarde Solos (center and rear) and a Velodyne DD-18 sub. I use the 5.1 outputs of the Oppo to feed a CJ MET-1 preamp. The digital sound, if I close my eyes, is not of the quality of the best digital that I have, but is still very good. What makes it so emotionally involving is the connection of the hirez video to the high quality sound (much better than audio or video from DVD's).
Finally, I am almost completing an almost year long journey to find a digital system that provides the kind of emotional impact that my two analogue systems provide and also will allow me to copy onto digital the heart (probably 7-10K) of my analogue records and tapes for both ease of playing and passing on to my daughter and son-in-law. They like playing vinyl, but there is no way that they will be willing or able to inherit 15K records, or even a small fraction of that. I will report on that journey in the music server section of the Forum. Suffice it to say that at this point, using the best sounding software, sound card, computer, ADDAC combination that I have heard at the highest practical resolution (192/24), the rips of my vinyl are very, very, compelling as are the best digital files that I have found. In terms of emotional involvement, I am really seeing a convergence of analogue and hirez digital.
As Mark commented, a major advantage of digital is the ease of access and I have seen the next generation of access software - Sooloos and a similar software which will allow access on an ipad or similar device. We should be seeing that software within the next two years.
Details to follow in the server forum.
Thanks, Larry
However, I am currently really enjoying blu-ray opera (digital of course) played through my Oppo Nuforce Edition, and my 5.1 setup, which adds 3 Avantgarde Solos (center and rear) and a Velodyne DD-18 sub. I use the 5.1 outputs of the Oppo to feed a CJ MET-1 preamp. The digital sound, if I close my eyes, is not of the quality of the best digital that I have, but is still very good. What makes it so emotionally involving is the connection of the hirez video to the high quality sound (much better than audio or video from DVD's).
Finally, I am almost completing an almost year long journey to find a digital system that provides the kind of emotional impact that my two analogue systems provide and also will allow me to copy onto digital the heart (probably 7-10K) of my analogue records and tapes for both ease of playing and passing on to my daughter and son-in-law. They like playing vinyl, but there is no way that they will be willing or able to inherit 15K records, or even a small fraction of that. I will report on that journey in the music server section of the Forum. Suffice it to say that at this point, using the best sounding software, sound card, computer, ADDAC combination that I have heard at the highest practical resolution (192/24), the rips of my vinyl are very, very, compelling as are the best digital files that I have found. In terms of emotional involvement, I am really seeing a convergence of analogue and hirez digital.
As Mark commented, a major advantage of digital is the ease of access and I have seen the next generation of access software - Sooloos and a similar software which will allow access on an ipad or similar device. We should be seeing that software within the next two years.
Details to follow in the server forum.
Thanks, Larry
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
... and to avoid loss due to repeated mechanical wear.
And if you listen blind, you will find they are indistinguishable. Blind tests have already been done in this regard, so you will be breaking no new ground here.
I think blind tests are not really useful. I think they put people in a stress mode when you take away one of the senses and it makes it harder to concentrate on the task at hand because you are missing one of your senses. I think if you want to perform blind tests, you should pay blind people who have good hearing to take the tests. They won't be stressed out and their hearing acuity may be better than the average person due to increasing the other senses to compensate for the blindness.
Similar threads
