Actually, micro, for some of us, digitally identical, plus jitter and noise below audible thresholds and a bit of listening for confirmation are proof enough. But I realize I'll never be able to prove it to Audiophiles.
Tim
What You're Missing
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
Actually, micro, for some of us, digitally identical, plus jitter and noise below audible thresholds and a bit of listening for confirmation are proof enough. But I realize I'll never be able to prove it to Audiophiles.
Tim
Evidently you didn't even understand my response, so I'm glad you didn't attempt to make it for me. The digital copy was not necessarily flawed. It may or may not have been, but that's irrelevant and so, then, was your statement "so much for perfect copies." The problem described in what you quoted was a flaw in the source material. These were bad masters for the digital medium. That was the problem (not the only problem with early digital, before another sidebar takes us off the rails...). Even a perfect copy would sound bad. A perfect copy might even sound worse. Car analogy: You put regular instead of high-octane fuel in a Ferrari and it doesn't run well. "So much for the performance of Ferarri's," you say.
Tim
Well stated mep.
It's difficult to put in writing the differences between digital and vinyl. When I had them side by side. I noted the steely sound of digital.it kindo f reminded me of the sound of a Carriibean steel band. it order to play it it usually had to be loud. i would not say it was completely lifeless and lacked emotion but there was something missing. Deep, bass longer music selections, lack of noise, wider dynamics. I could play my favorite song repeatedly. Yet I never could escape the fact I was listening to my hi-fi.
The vinyl had a host of faults. The qulaity varried across the disc. Endless tinkering. Limited FR.Noise. I eliminated most ticks and pops with a good record cleaner. I rarely played a record twice in 24 hours. Record quality was hit or miss.
I can't explain it but the music just seemd right. It just seemed transparent. Female voices jsut came through. I could feel heartbreak,sadness, joy... The music had a livness to it. Iwas not listenig to hi-fi . it was a human being or a piano.
It's not to say these things never come through on digital. There just seems to be a strian and it comes up short.
I could demonstrate the difference. At RMAF 2010 There was two rooms I enjoyed most The Dartzeel, Playback Designs/ Evolution Acoustics and the the TAD, Technical Brain, Walker Air Tight Supreme. I could live with either. But there was jsut something about vinyl that made a difference.
It's difficult to put in writing the differences between digital and vinyl. When I had them side by side. I noted the steely sound of digital.it kindo f reminded me of the sound of a Carriibean steel band. it order to play it it usually had to be loud. i would not say it was completely lifeless and lacked emotion but there was something missing. Deep, bass longer music selections, lack of noise, wider dynamics. I could play my favorite song repeatedly. Yet I never could escape the fact I was listening to my hi-fi.
The vinyl had a host of faults. The qulaity varried across the disc. Endless tinkering. Limited FR.Noise. I eliminated most ticks and pops with a good record cleaner. I rarely played a record twice in 24 hours. Record quality was hit or miss.
I can't explain it but the music just seemd right. It just seemed transparent. Female voices jsut came through. I could feel heartbreak,sadness, joy... The music had a livness to it. Iwas not listenig to hi-fi . it was a human being or a piano.
It's not to say these things never come through on digital. There just seems to be a strian and it comes up short.
I could demonstrate the difference. At RMAF 2010 There was two rooms I enjoyed most The Dartzeel, Playback Designs/ Evolution Acoustics and the the TAD, Technical Brain, Walker Air Tight Supreme. I could live with either. But there was jsut something about vinyl that made a difference.
I'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to get your point You've droned on and on for over two years. I just don't agree.
Tim,
Many authors report that a few CD early recordings suffered from this problem - the master tapes were not accessible the masters used for vinyl were used - and this justification explains the poor sound of them. But this was not the reason of the poor sounding of most of them - many of the worst offenders were even sourced from original digital recordings. The industry needed time to learn how to properly master a recording for a digital format, and as I have read elsewhere, the existing mastering tools at that time were very poor. I am referring mostly to classical recordings, my experience with pop/rock is more limited.
So far you haven't even been able to get a grip on what it is you're currently disagreeing with. In any case, let's let Mark have his thread back.
Tim
Not to mention the issues they had with jitter in going from a 1630 to a glass master.
Tim,
The statement sounds very nice, but suffers from the generic vague definition plus jitter and noise below audible thresholds, without any quantification. Perhaps because even the non-Audiophiles (just referring to those who are not Audiophiles with capital A
) can not agree on the quantification of these thresholds.
About the only thing I miss about Vinyl is the larger album artwork. I grew up with it and have the capability to play it but rarely do. Both can sound excellent so I don't understand how anyone can say one is unequivocally better than the other. They are both good within the limitations of each format. Both are so software dependant and recordings are so hit or miss that from that standpoint not all that much has changed.
Rob
Rob
... With decent (free, even) error-correction software, there is no generational loss in digital. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is only the opportunity for the build-up of jitter and/or noise. Be smart. Pass on that opportunity.
Tim
I think the first part of this statement is correct, but the second part (which in fact contradicts the first part) I believe is wrong. Added jitter and noise occur only during playback, and if they were added during copying they would change the digital data of the file, and so be rejected by checksum comparison.
You may be right that jitter and noise can only be added during playback (I don't think so, but...), but you can have a bit perfect file with jitter and noise. Of that, I'm as close as I can be to certain. Now I'll wait for a resident expert to tell me I'm wrong.
Tim
About the only thing I miss about Vinyl is the larger album artwork. I grew up with it and have the capability to play it but rarely do. Both can sound excellent so I don't understand how anyone can say one is unequivocally better than the other. They are both good within the limitations of each format. Both are so software dependant and recordings are so hit or miss that from that standpoint not all that much has changed.
Rob
I used to miss the artwork. Then I realized if I want to gaze at art or read liner notes while I'm listening to a piece of music, I have my iPad in my hands and the internet has more art and notes for every major act and album than any cover ever had. I'm good.
Tim
Same here!!!
When I feel it I scan the liner notes most of the times ..I don't
You may be right that jitter and noise can only be added during playback (I don't think so, but...), but you can have a bit perfect file with jitter and noise. Of that, I'm as close as I can be to certain. Now I'll wait for a resident expert to tell me I'm wrong.
Tim
Tim,
Digital data is stored statically as an analogue entity existing somewhere. Only at the moment of readout you can have jitter, some forms of storing can be more prone to generate jitter than others. Noise in this system that keeps the data will only manifest during playback as jitter in the data readout - there is no "digital noise" since digital data has no errors. Audio analogue noise in the output is due to the implementation. All IMHO, I am not a resident expert.
You may be right that jitter and noise can only be added during playback (I don't think so, but...), but you can have a bit perfect file with jitter and noise. Of that, I'm as close as I can be to certain. Now I'll wait for a resident expert to tell me I'm wrong.
Tim
I'm not quite sure what you mean by have a "bit perfect file with jitter and noise". If you mean a bit perfect copy, no that's not true. Either the file or the copy may manifest jitter and noise on playback, but if the playback hardware/software is the same for each file, they will play back identically. We've been through this already, unless you are one of those Luddites who don't trust or use computers at all. Pretty much all of the acouterments of our lives today depend on the supposition that identical computer files are in fact identical in every applicable way. If you think two bit-identical audio files behave differently, I'd get all your money out of the banking system and start driving a car from the '60's or earlier.
Hello Tim
It's not the same thing IMHO. You had a Zipper on Sticky Fingers, textured and embossed covers, on Stand Up you had a caricature of the band that stood-up when it was opened, on Dark Side of The Moon you have posters and actually many had posters inside. On Ambrosia's second you had a cover that could be folded as a pyramid and many other unique and creative designs that no photo's could ever do justice to.
Rob
Similar threads
