When is enough, enough, or how to get off the bandwagon??

[Mike Lavigne]

You seem to regard PCM or DSD digital as fatally flawed, whereas I see analog recording as fatally flawed.

wrong. find a quote from me that even suggests that. i love digital. it's great. it was meant to be good enough and it is. i have lots of it at the highest levels of digital formats. it's just not as good as analog can be. period. i've spent lots of dollars chasing SOTA digital. how much more clear can i be about it?

as far as analog being flawed; who cares? just listen to top on the heap analog! it's perfectly flawed. just like real life.

No matter how you make an analog recording you are faced with limitations of the physical size of the smallest particles of your substrate (magnetic tape); with digital you can really go right down to atomic size, many orders of magnitude more resolving. I don't see how that can't be potentially better.

true; you cannot see it so you don't believe it. try listening! forget about whether it makes sense.

who cares about all these issues? i care about the performance. it does go against one's intuition, especially if you are an engineer where you only believe what your prof said was true, when you hear what a tape or lp can really do and try to resolve the technology that seemingly should not be able to do what it's doing.

but it does do it!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You seem to regard PCM or DSD digital as fatally flawed, whereas I see analog recording as fatally flawed. No matter how you make an analog recording you are faced with limitations of the physical size of the smallest particles of your substrate (magnetic tape); with digital you can really go right down to atomic size, many orders of magnitude more resolving. I don't see how that can't be potentially better.

Despite your pessimism, there are some engineers working to improve our digital recording; DXD, 32/384 PCM, 5.6 MHz and higher DSD all come to mind. I suspect (hope?) someone will eventually get it right (soon would be better)

ok; you live in Reno. jump in your car, drive up here to the Seattle area. you can stay with me a night or two. we'll listen to all those great digital formats (i have lots of files of every format you list) on SOTA digital gear then i'll blow your brains out with some analog.....and it won't be close.

are you game? it will be fun.

 

[rbbert]

ok; you live in Reno. jump in your car, drive up here to the Seattle area. you can stay with me a night or two. we'll listen to all those great digital formats on SOTA digital gear then i'll blow your brains out with some analog.

are you game? it will be fun.

You persist in missing the point. I've been listening to analog LP's and analog tape for years; I know how it sounds and how it can sound. I'm not even interested in discussing which has the best sound today. But it's really a dead end as a way to distribute music on any kind of scale, and regardless of how good it is now there are unavoidable physical limitations to how good it can get. None of those limitations have to apply to digital recording, although to realize its potential there needs to be both some interest and some more resources applied to its improvement.

 

[JackD201]

Two guys on the same side arguing. That's funny.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You persist in missing the point. I've been listening to analog LP's and analog tape for years; I know how it sounds and how it can sound. I'm not even interested in discussing which has the best sound today. But it's really a dead end as a way to distribute music on any kind of scale, and regardless of how good it is now there are unavoidable physical limitations to how good it can get. None of those limitations have to apply to digital recording, although to realize its potential there needs to be both some interest and some more resources applied to its improvement.

ok. so you start out feeling strongly that PCM digital is not fully mature as a format. i disagree. it's not going to get much better.

now it's analog distribution that is it's flaw and you agree now that it will take market forces to drive development fuinds to come up with new digital formats that take us further.

sounds good.

with 10,000+ Lps i don't really care about analog distribution problems.

 

[rbbert]

In your own post #101 and #107 your comment seems to indicate PCM isn't going to get any better, and it's not good enough according to your post #91. That's not "fatally flawed?" Furthermore, I'm not talking about "new" digital formats, I'm talking about refining and improving the ones we have, which you suggest isn't possible.

I'm nowhere near as enthusiastic as you are about the best available analog audio reproduction; that seems to be our other source of disagreement.

 

[dan31]

I would think this is a matter of transcription and translation. Theoretical possibilities aside analong recordings are a transcription and extracting the information from a recording results in less loss. If analog is limited the recovery of information is its savior.

 

[caesar]

To reiterate what I told Steve and Amir, this really is a great site.

Best,

Gordon

Dude,

This is a great site. But it has several clans. Some people here primarily believe in the primacy of physical science when it comes to audio. Others have an expanded view of the universe where they augment hard sciences with social sciences, along with personal and subjective elements. Many folks here love to argue, but many share their subjective experiences. If you hang out in the right neighborhoods with folks from your clan, you will find your experience here very rewarding.

 

[caesar]

Coming back to topic, I will share what happened after a recent massage. While still in la-la land, the lady handed me a card with this note:

"Mr. Caesar, Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect. It means that you've decided to look beyond the imperfections."

I wonder how many audiophiles fail to understand this and hold unrealistic beliefs of how good audio systems can be, leading to upgrade carousel and gear envy vs. music focus.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm nowhere near as enthusiastic as you are about the best available analog audio reproduction; that seems to be our other source of disagreement.

that's why you need to come on up and listen.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

In your own post #101 and #107 your comment seems to indicate PCM isn't going to get any better, and it's not good enough according to your post #91. That's not "fatally flawed?" Furthermore, I'm not talking about "new" digital formats, I'm talking about refining and improving the ones we have, which you suggest isn't possible.

i consistently say that PCM digital can sound very good. i listen to it often. i have lots of it and gear to allow PCM to sound as good as it can. i'm not anti-digital in any way. it's good enough.

it's only when people who are not exposed to the best of analog write things about how digital compares, or might compare, to analog that i get my hackles up. digital does not need to equal or better analog to be enjoyable or even be good. so our views diverge on how good analog can be. and all my comments are consistent.

there are plenty of people trying to improve digital; and they are not getting very far. there is simply not enough information in the PCM digital formats to work with. and that is where analog has the advantage, much more information. so your theory of better dacs or adc's fails since they don't add data. when a digital format captures as much data as analog, then other theoretical advantages of digital will change the game. until then, the best analog rules.

 

[Tonepub]

Agreed.

I always get lulled into a false sense of complacency listening to a very good digital front end, but then I slow down, put a great album on and wow... It's another world entirely.

 

[Tonepub]

Coming back to topic, I will share what happened after a recent massage. While still in la-la land, the lady handed me a card with this note:

"Mr. Caesar, Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect. It means that you've decided to look beyond the imperfections."

I wonder how many audiophiles fail to understand this and hold unrealistic beliefs of how good audio systems can be, leading to upgrade carousel and gear envy vs. music focus.

No gear envy here, yet I'm still surprised when something takes me further than I've gone. No lack of music focus either. I've got a fairly substantial music collection and depending on the year, I get to attend between 60 and 100 live shows every year, all over the world.

I just enjoy music, no matter what it's played on.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Coming back to topic, I will share what happened after a recent massage. While still in la-la land, the lady handed me a card with this note:

"Mr. Caesar, Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect. It means that you've decided to look beyond the imperfections."

I wonder how many audiophiles fail to understand this and hold unrealistic beliefs of how good audio systems can be, leading to upgrade carousel and gear envy vs. music focus.

Well just how good can they [audio systems] be Caeser? Do you think we've reached the zenith?

It's like the ages old question submitted to a designer: How will you improve on this design? And somehow the very best still do and bring us more than occassional glimpses of the real thing. And as Mike pointed out, the software is the limiting factor. You [audiophiles] don't know how good their equipment can be until they hear a master tape on their system. In so many cases, the equipment is only showing off what it's fed. So any improvements there are multiplied several fold.

 

[rbbert]

... there is simply not enough information in the PCM digital formats to work with. and that is where analog has the advantage, much more information...

OK, now we are finally back to my original post which started this. My point then and now is that your statement is simply wrong; theoretically 24/96 PCM digital (to say nothing of higher information density PCM and other digital formats) has the potential for much more information than any analog format. The fact that it doesn't sound that way is why I think it isn't being done "right".

 

[Mike Lavigne]

OK, now we are finally back to my original post which started this. My point then and now is that your statement is simply wrong; theoretically 24/96 PCM digital (to say nothing of higher information density PCM and other digital formats) has the potential for much more information than any analog format. The fact that it doesn't sound that way is why I think it isn't being done "right".

evidence, my man, evidence. where is it to support that thought? what makes you think that 'done right' 24/96 PCM has more information than analog? you've just thrown that out there, you have not made a case for it.

 

[ack]

I want to see that evidence as well

 

[FrantzM]

evidence, my man, evidence. where is it to support that thought? what makes you think that 'done right' 24/96 PCM has more information than analog? you've just thrown that out there, you have not made a case for it.

Mike

I have no problem with you stating you prefer analog. That's more than fine that's is a prerogative. Stating however that

... there is simply not enough information in the PCM digital formats to work with. and that is where analog has the advantage, much more information...

is factually wrong.
Some people have been exposed to as good a gear as you have and come up with their preference toward digital... Preferences .. Not debatable ... Fact is 24/96 has ALL the information the best analog do. It is a fact provable, repeatable ad infinitum .. That will not change the preference you have for analog.. And that's OK I will and can not debate it... and yes! I will come up seat down and enjoy your statement system .. I may even, on your system prefer your analog to your digital PCM or otherwise it won't change the fact that 24/96 contains the information of the best in analog namely tape or whatever your favorite flavor of analog is...

 

[microstrip]

IMHO, the origin of our debates lies in this comment:

"That two-channel stereo works at all is frankly unbelievable. And indeed, there are some who would say that the whole thing about two-channel stereo is the suspension of disbelief. But it does work remarkably well. I understand that limitation, and we work within that framework. It is the state of the art at the moment. We cannot unilaterally change that."

Quoted from an interesting interview of Laurence Dickie to Peter Roth of UlraAudio - you can read it all at, as it is free

http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=242:searching-for-the-extreme-laurence-dickie-of-vivid-audio-part-one&catid=31:general&Itemid=46

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike

I have no problem with you stating you prefer analog. That's more than fine that's is a prerogative. Stating however that is factually wrong.
Some people have been exposed to as good a gear as you have and come up with their preference toward digital... Preferences .. Not debatable ... Fact is 24/96 has ALL the information the best analog do. It is a fact provable, repeatable ad infinitum .. That will not change the preference you have for analog.. And that's OK I will and can not debate it... and yes! I will come up seat down and enjoy your statement system .. I may even, on your system prefer your analog to your digital PCM or otherwise it won't change the fact that 24/96 contains the information of the best in analog namely tape or whatever your favorite flavor of analog is...

i see no case made Frantz. make the case. show me the example of that. this is not accuracy, this is information.