Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: What is wrong with digital reproduction?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886

    What is wrong with digital reproduction?

    I have been wondering why so many of us are not as satisfied with digital sound as the vast majority were satisfied with analog when it was dominant. I know so many listeners who still wonder how CD’s came to replace vinyl when the only advantage was convenience. This was long before mp3’s, iPods and the nearly universal adaption of inferior mastering techniques based on loudness of playback.

    How is it that a process as seamless and smooth as the Sony 2.8mhz technology can sound unnatural to many astute listeners? What is it that digital processing does, or does not do, that withholds the final measure of satisfaction from listeners like me? I have learned to live with CD's, but whenever I have added one more digital element in the reproduction chain I can't bear to listen. I have no technical explanation of what is going on but I can describe the result in language we can understand.

    I need to reach back to my art roots for a way to verbalize what is wrong with the result. Imagine two artists creating something. It does not matter what, be it paintings, sculptures, musical compositions or performances, films, whatever. I will use painting and illustration as an example as it is most easily recognized there. One artist is giving form to something his soul is commanding him to create, using his considerable skill and experience to go where his heart commands. He is creating something for its own sake. The other is creating an ad for General Motors. The instincts of his heart are going to be modified to serve a different master, and how different his creation is. Things are indeed smoothed out and dumbed down to appeal to more than his soul. The target audience is as many people as possible and the recognition must be simple and quick. Gone are elements and passages too even, too rough, too challenging, too asymmetric, too startling, too unfamiliar, too stimulating of the areas of the human brain not remotely connected with acquiring material things. The result is – here is the key word – slick. It seems less the product of human beings and more the product of a machine.

    Slick is a dirty word in the world of fine art and it should be in the world of music as well. (I know it is when it comes to the music itself. I still cringe when I remember Donnie & Marie – and about twenty other people – doing Jambalaya as the finale of a TV special. It was “da-da, da da, da da…” None of the life, swing or fire of the Hank Williams classic was there. A great – well, terrible – example of what slick is.) There is something slick about the digital reproduction of music, and we can hear the difference even if the end product is technically analog. It does not sound as natural, not surprising when you consider that analog is everywhere in nature and digital is nowhere in natural creation. Likewise, artwork created using computer graphics is understandably slick when compared to work created with hands, but what, you might say, about synthesizers? Same story, digital is inferior to analog in the category of naturalness.

    I bought the CD from the Novachord Restoration Project some time ago, and it is startling in its superiority over digital instruments where sound quality is concerned. It is an analog all tube unit and it sounds natural and georgeous. It is a pain to restore and carry from one place to another and cannot be programmed but must be played. Today the field is dominated by far more convenient instruments that sound like garbage in comparison. Sound familier?

    Clark
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  2. #2
    Senior Member demon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    vienna
    Posts
    404
    very nice statement. thank you for sharing your opinions!

    ----------------
    isnt the human brain digital in its very basic nervous impulses?
    just a thougt, i mean, im not a doctor...
    ----------------

    my opinion:
    ive done some blindfolded tests and learned that most of my sensitive hearing was merely "feeling the vibe" and somehow empathy for the rig. i learned to let this vibe go and solely concentrate on what i hear with my ears, and doing that i enjoy music more then before, im very relaxed with these issues (i make music myself to).
    if its done properly, theres nothing wrong with digital sounds imho.


    cheers,
    have a nice weekend!
    mikey

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    No argument from me, Mikey! There is room for digital or any other way to make or reproduce a sound that may ever be developed. Let's just say I felt I had one more rant left in the old left brain.

    The human brain works just like the rat brain or just about any other brain. It may indeed be like zeros and ones, perhaps buffered by the chemistry involved. Not my field either. :dont-know Interestingly, the commands to create sound, by voice or instrument, are executed by analog devices like vocal chords and hands.

    What I have found is the better the reproduction, the more I prefer analog. I can hardly tell the difference if the stereo (or Home theater) rig is just average or less. I would not advocate vacuum tube iPods, but look at this op amp!
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  4. #4
    Senior Member richluvsound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    london england
    Posts
    2,060

    my 2 pence worth !

    Hi Guy's,
    acrylic = digital, oil = analog.

    I'm experimenting with dac at present. I'm finding the sound far more open with the MSB and Chord 64 mk 11 dacs.
    I would love to convert to analog but, I would have to treat my room $$$££££ if I got rid of the DEQX. That would take more skill than I have . I need to kidnap AndyOz and give him my bank details

    Rich

  5. #5
    Senior Member Donald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, CA
    Posts
    527
    Ducatista47,

    I am a bit confused. Since you like what you hear on the Novachord CD it appears you are OK with CDs. Is it just digital keyboards and their original sounds?

    How about a digital keyboard that is playing sampled Novachord notes?

    How would that be any differant than the CD you like? Both have the Novachord notes stored as a bunch of 1s and 0s.
    had L25,L36,L40,L120,L300,AquariusIV(2),S1,4408 have L65,L100,L222,DorianS12,B380

  6. #6
    Senior Member Rusnzha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    456
    I recently went into debt to upgrade my Sony 999ES CD/SACD player with all the stuff Modwright could put on it. All of a sudden, playing analog outs and Logic 7 on my HK 7300, became my permanant default and the sound is fabulous. The biggest problem with digital IMHO is cheesy op amps and analog sections. The best thing about making this mod is that it gets me out of the digital rat race. Every time you get a new receiver, three days later they come out with some new and improved format (now it's PL2 HD and DTS HD). I don't use my optical connections for music ever, they sound sterile and anemic. Even 24 bit DTS sounds crappy next to the tube analog outputs and Logic 7. Before the upgrade, SACD was somewhat boxy sounding and didn't even sound as good as DTS 96/24. Now SACD lives up to it's billing.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald View Post
    Ducatista47,

    I am a bit confused. Since you like what you hear on the Novachord CD it appears you are OK with CDs. Is it just digital keyboards and their original sounds?

    How about a digital keyboard that is playing sampled Novachord notes?

    How would that be any differant than the CD you like? Both have the Novachord notes stored as a bunch of 1s and 0s.
    Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse! I did take pains to mention that I have learned to live with CD's. There is so much newer music - I'm talking here the last twenty years or so - not available on analog source for home playback that I refuse to limit myself that way. I do all this because I love to listen to music. If an mp3 is all I have of a great tune I use it.

    I was talking about comparing the sound on CD of an analog synthesizer to the sound on CD of a digital synthesizer. We can do that.

    The rest of what I am talking about, and I am not trying to be elitist, is not a factor unless a system is really, really good at reproducing what is there. Nearly all receivers, transistor (as opposed to the cleverer Mosfet and Jfet devices, as well as good triode and Mu Stage triode-pentode gear) amplification of all types, higher powered gear and the low efficiency speakers that demand it (that is another discussion, I know, but if you listen to this stuff with Stax headphones for a while you will hear what is wrong with it), poor quality CD's and poor quality Cd players, etc will not be true enough to life to make a difference. To that I will add anything with more than a trace of negative feedback. I will soon have a system with NO negative feedback after the front end, assuming there is some present there. All the other equipment may be fine, usefull stuff, but once you have crossed over the River Jordan you will not want to cross back, and this stuff then matters. This is relative of course, all a matter of degree. We can't match the original performance with electronics in our homes, but it can be more like it or less like it.

    Yes, I have heard tube gear that sounded terrible, bad vinyl not as good as a well made CD (or even an ordinary CD) of the same program material, Full range speakers that sucked, four way speakers that did not. But I am talking about the actual gear that really works well at this level. If you think this is all a rant by a stuck up tube/vinyl guy, you have the wrong fellow. Build stuff like this and you will know there is more than one way to get there, and not all involve hot glass or a stylus.http://www.firstwatt.com/default.html

    In a signal chain the weakest link rules, but everything makes its contribution, be it a neutral one or a bad one. Sampling is one more step that further removes us from the fidelity of the original source and is a great example of how to further alter a signal you are trying not to alter but to reproduce. A digital source is one thing, but once decoded (DA converted) it can still be further degraded. A system with the quality to let you hear the difference will demonstrate what an AD-DA device in the path after that does to the fidelity. It sounds like a train wreck of the sound you had before it went in.

    Thank you for your feedback (no pun intended!),
    Clark
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  8. #8
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusnzha View Post
    I recently went into debt to upgrade my Sony 999ES CD/SACD player with all the stuff Modwright could put on it. All of a sudden, playing analog outs and Logic 7 on my HK 7300, became my permanant default and the sound is fabulous. The biggest problem with digital IMHO is cheesy op amps and analog sections. The best thing about making this mod is that it gets me out of the digital rat race. Every time you get a new receiver, three days later they come out with some new and improved format (now it's PL2 HD and DTS HD). I don't use my optical connections for music ever, they sound sterile and anemic. Even 24 bit DTS sounds crappy next to the tube analog outputs and Logic 7. Before the upgrade, SACD was somewhat boxy sounding and didn't even sound as good as DTS 96/24. Now SACD lives up to it's billing.
    That sounds great! You may have an answer to my original question of why the Sony system does not float my boat. Being immune from the low sampling rate that doomed redbook Cd's from the start as hifi, I could not figure out why it wasn't natural sounding enough.

    Then again, I can't figure out why the really high quality Japanese Redbook CD's can sound so much better than other vendor's products. About as good as vinyl, really. I thought it might be the pre production, but they are better than XRCD too.

    I had read about the Modwright mods and tweaks for the Sony unit, but this is the first listening report from someone I trust. Thanks! Any company smart enough to employ the services of Alan Kimmel is good enough for me. A link: http://www.modwright.com/modscaps/

    My JoLida CD player has analog tube output and I love it. What tubes are you using?



    Clark
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  9. #9
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by richluvsound View Post
    Hi Guy's,
    acrylic = digital, oil = analog.

    I'm experimenting with dac at present. I'm finding the sound far more open with the MSB and Chord 64 mk 11 dacs.
    I would love to convert to analog but, I would have to treat my room $$$££££ if I got rid of the DEQX. That would take more skill than I have . I need to kidnap AndyOz and give him my bank details

    Rich
    It's all plastic to me!

    If I were not blowing all my cash on this other foolishness of mine, I would be DAC hunting too. I do listen to digital sources mostly. Ian says the CD player I have has a good enough DAC in it, so I try ignore what I cannot afford.

    Ah, the almighty room! The tail that wags the dog. I just hope I never have to move again. Thanks for the reminder that I should be fixing the room first. Electronics are so much fun (and so portable) and home improvements are such a pain.

    Clark
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  10. #10
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusnzha View Post
    I recently went into debt to upgrade my Sony 999ES CD/SACD player with all the stuff Modwright could put on it. All of a sudden, playing analog outs and Logic 7 on my HK 7300, became my permanant default and the sound is fabulous. The biggest problem with digital IMHO is cheesy op amps and analog sections. The best thing about making this mod is that it gets me out of the digital rat race. Every time you get a new receiver, three days later they come out with some new and improved format (now it's PL2 HD and DTS HD). I don't use my optical connections for music ever, they sound sterile and anemic. Even 24 bit DTS sounds crappy next to the tube analog outputs and Logic 7. Before the upgrade, SACD was somewhat boxy sounding and didn't even sound as good as DTS 96/24. Now SACD lives up to it's billing.
    I agree to a point. I think you also need a quality DAC, that said, most of the contemporary digital stuff is far superior to that which was made a number of years ago. Once the signal leaves the digital domain a high quality analog section seems to elude most designers. I am not sure if it is skill or cost, but most players I have heard short of the mega-buck variety just don't float my boat.

    I don't think it needs to be tubed, but the analog section needs to be of high quality or the sound is simply acceptable and the magic is lost. I believe that if more SACD players had been sold with an excellent analog section, that format wouldn't be in the dire situation that we find it in today.


    Widget

  11. #11
    Dang. Amateur speakerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,734
    Here's a question that I do not think is as off topic as it might seem at first.

    What is our hearing context? Of the people fifty years old and under today, what portion of their hearing experience is unamplified live music?

    What proportion of the population has sung a song all the way through in the past year, besides Happy Birthday.

    Of all the songs you know, if any, is there one that you learned from a person and not a record?

    Even in church PA's are very common and even choirs are for some reason using PA's and when the congregation is singing sometimes even then the sound is dominated by the pastor singing into a mike.

    I've been to a collaborative performance of two a capella singing groups (womens's voices) in which one of the the leaders angrily insisted that the SR be turned up until it absolutely blasted the audience, and it sounded to me like 35% distortion.

    I think the commonality no longer have a non-amplified, non-electronic, non-media-based frame of reference for evaluating sound quality.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Hoerninger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,892
    What is wrong with digital reproduction?
    It is a very challenging question. An answer is not easy as there are so many factors which influence the result.
    I can only formulate some thoughts:

    I have been wondering why so many of us are not as satisfied with digital sound as the vast majority were satisfied with analog when it was dominant.
    I am not shure about the validity of this statement. Seen absolute it might be true, but there are so many who do not complain about CD quality itself but about the music. The old radio was surely not of high quality, but with improved tuners, turntables, taperecorders and so on their deficiencies became obvious too. With digital technique all these flaws were swapped away.
    Now we are getting to know the deficiencies of digital processing which are different.

    What is it that digital processing does, or does not do, that withholds the final measure of satisfaction from listeners like me?
    It is very difficulty for me to perform an objectiv and reliable comparison as I do not have an all analog recording here and an all digital one there from the same source. But I can observe some aspects.
    Besides that digital processing can produce different and even very nasty distortion there are very subtle ones. I made the observation that I prefer to listen to the music (which I transfered from LP to computer) from HD and not from CD burned thereafter. Someone explained to me it is due to jitter.
    Otherwise the difference between a LP and my self produced CD is very small, I even do not care - and can not describe it. (When I try to compare a LP with the commercial "digital remastered" version it is often impossible because there is a remix involved.)
    I own a SACD version of an analog produced recording, "A Love Supreme" by John Coltrane. When I listen to it I am completely satisfied. (I do not know the LP version.) And I know there are better SACD players, the amp should be more powerful, the speakers are not capable of very high sound pressure especially in the bass (no horns) and there should be less early reflections.
    But despite of all these imperfection I would not like to have a real drumset, piano or saxophone in my living room! Although I like very much a saxophone in a great audience.

    One artist is giving form to something his soul is commanding him to create,... The other is creating an ad for General Motors.
    I will not talk about distortion which can be quite nice in the analog world but disgusting in the digital world. And I do not mean electronically produced sounds and any "enhancements".

    We know the better the eqipment the easier deficiencies can be recognized. And a high quality all analog playback can be a real treat (good LP; master tape). I suppose a very advanced digital playback can be pleasing too. But aren't we used to our hearing habits?
    At the moment we are still dealing with "good or bad" DACs and the analog section is often neglected as mentioned above. (Once I tinkered with a home brew amp for an electrostatic headphone till I forced a certain opamp to class A instead of its normal class AB.)

    And when all is perfected it is time to look at the front end: Correct miking which is not done alone with DECCA tree, panpotting and some digital reveberation. (I do not talk about electronic music).
    ____________
    Peter

  13. #13
    Senior Member Skywave-Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    313
    I agree. Younger people, overall, have much less opportunity to fix an acoustical foundation into their mind’s ear.

    I’m speaking from my experience teaching young people recording techniques. It’s probably too late by the time I meet them. They are often shocked face to face with a drum/horn/strings/even electric guitar. Sometimes they feign disinterest. Not always true of course.

    In many cases, when presented with opportunities to “hear” in a setting with acoustical reinforcement, they are not interested and/or confused.

    I think about what you say all the time.

    I think I’m reading you correctly, but I’m not exactly sure how it relates to this topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by speakerdave View Post
    Here's a question that I do not think is as off topic as it might seem at first.

    What is our hearing context? Of the people fifty years old and under today, what portion of their hearing experience is unamplified live music?

    What proportion of the population has sung a song all the way through in the past year, besides Happy Birthday.

    Of all the songs you know, if any, is there one that you learned from a person and not a record?

    Even in church PA's are very common and even choirs are for some reason using PA's and when the congregation is singing sometimes even then the sound is dominated by the pastor singing into a mike.

    I've been to a collaborative performance of two a capella singing groups (womens's voices) in which one of the the leaders angrily insisted that the SR be turned up until it absolutely blasted the audience, and it sounded to me like 35% distortion.

    I think the commonality no longer have a non-amplified, non-electronic, non-media-based frame of reference for evaluating sound quality.

  14. #14
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoerninger View Post
    And when all is perfected it is time to look at the front end: Correct miking which is not done alone with DECCA tree, panpotting and some digital reveberation. (I do not talk about electronic music).
    ____________
    Peter
    I am playing with vinyl again, but it works for both analog & dig ....There are great quality recordings and those that suck on both formats. I was listening to "take 5" (Dave Brubeck) on LP and it was nearly perfect...except for the occasional pop, you would not know it was vinyl.

    The Japanese and German pressings of US music are always more desirable. Why ? I assume that they take more QA care.

    I think what I'm saying is that its not the media that matters, but the care in original recording, mixing and production that matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    I know so many listeners who still wonder how CD’s came to replace vinyl when the only advantage was convenience.

    Clark
    well, there is that longevity issue, and it takes a lot more abuse to destroy a CD
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

  15. #15
    Dang. Amateur speakerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywave-Rider View Post
    . . . . I think I’m reading you correctly, but I’m not exactly sure how it relates to this topic.
    It is that each succeeding generation of audio technology has as it's context all the preceding generations of audio technology and proportionately less of natural sound.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Five-Screen reproduction
    By JBL 4645 in forum Miscellaneous Gear
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-24-2011, 03:07 PM
  2. Interesting "White Van" article
    By SEAWOLF97 in forum Miscellaneous Gear
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-03-2010, 04:04 PM
  3. Benchmark DAC-1 - Need help and opinions guys!
    By Ken Pachkowsky in forum Miscellaneous Gear
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 07-09-2006, 06:22 PM
  4. What problems to expect with surrounds on the wrong side?
    By BMWCCA in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-14-2006, 10:13 AM
  5. Digital Hardware Sonic Differences
    By Don McRitchie in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-19-2005, 12:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •