I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but obviously if a recording isn't very good and doesn't capture certain information then no playback system will re-create something that isn't in that recording.Originally Posted by Maron Horonzakz
Widget
I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but obviously if a recording isn't very good and doesn't capture certain information then no playback system will re-create something that isn't in that recording.
Widget
The only way to even get close to what you are hearing it to put microphones on your ears. When recording an orchestra the room must be mic'd as well.
Allan.
This is an entirely different subject… but one that merits discussion on it's own thread. A thread dealing with the reality of recordings, perception etc.
Widget
While I dont disagree with the convenience aspect if your had access to industry sales figures CD sales are declining, itunes is on the up and there is a resurgence of vinyl in retail and online channels.
A local HiFi shop Klapp Electronics that has been around for 50 years has no less than 10 turntables on display and a stack of Mcintosh gear as well as JBL 9900, 4700s.
This suggests to me there is indeed a demand for vinyl and associated playback equipment and perhaps this supports the earlier posts on why people like listening to vinyl.
Edit. We went part the shop this afternoon and I askedthe sales rep hour many turntables he sells a week. Between 30-50 a week on units from $500 up
Apparently most of the sales are to the younger crowd who have never seen or heard vinyl and the older crowd who want to upgrade.
And the Ford F150 pickup is the Number One selling vehicle in the USA but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy driving it more than my (old) BMW! Popularity or sales have little to nothing to do with quality. Going by your references I'm sure low-res MP3 is the preferred format for nearly all genres of music purchases. The resurgence in vinyl sales is due mostly to if becoming hip to a younger generation. "Audiophiles" have a very small fractional influence on volume in either of these mediums.
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
The subject of this thread is about the comparison of the sound quality of Digital vs. Analog technologies. When I referred to CDs it was because I assume most Forum members still play CDs as their primary high quality digital source. That said I have several high quality digital sources and I seldom open a jewel box and place a CD into a CD player anymore.
Regarding the popularity of turntables and vinyl records, I do not know the industry numbers, but anecdotally I have sold only one CD player in the last couple of years. I have sold about a dozen turntables and hundreds of Sonos players, AppleTVs, and various other streaming devices.
Widget
And the Ford F150 pickup is the Number One selling vehicle in the USA but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy driving it more than my (old) BMW! Popularity or sales have little to nothing to do with quality. Going by your references I'm sure low-res MP3 is the preferred format for nearly all genres of music purchases. The resurgence in vinyl sales is due mostly to if becoming hip to a younger generation. "Audiophiles" have a very small fractional influence on volume in either of these mediums.
Exactly and my edited post some confirms the point that you have made in that preferences have completely changed in recent times.
The reason I have commented on sales/popularity is I don't think you can have a one dimensional discussion on quality as a preference without looking at how music as a commodity is consumed and identifying the end users.
The argument of vinyl versus cd and Digital streaming has been talked to about before and I found Clarke's post authentic and refreshing.
My only comment on sn ratio is that in the digital domain while the an ratio might be claimed to be say 120db.
However, irresolution falls off sharply with a reduction in signal level and as a consequence distortion rises.
In this respect I prefer to lump noise with harmonic distortion as a percentage of the signal.
The digital guys conveniently don't tell you this in the marketing blurb.
This is a known problem and there is a great paper on the Lavry site. More recent developments in digital claim to have improved the situation.
Vinyl has the opposite problem with satutation at high amplitude levels (magnetic tape) but the resolution at low levels is excellent! Depending on the vinyl disk (180gram) and how quiet your phono stage is background noise can vary significantly.
The exception was of course the Sheffield Lab direct disk pressings that to this day had superior dynamis range to regular vinyl recording processes.
On some recodings of vinyl you can hear the tape hiss.
On the subject of hiss I don't find groove noise at all objectionable using a high quality phono stage like the Passlabs unit.
I still find digital sounding a bit bricks and mortar compared to a great vinyl play back system. This view is shared by the underground HiFi guru's in my team at work.
See my more recent post.
I have Sonos and I love it but I still like to put my head in the vice and listen to a very non audiophile experience from my vintage JBL.
IIan, thank you. You are too kind. I agree that what analogue and digital are doing popularity wise is relevant because it sheds light on the perception in today's World of the choices. It harkens back to those higher, larger choices I alluded to. They may be fundamental but they are not made in a vacuum and what they mean in not independent of their context. Deep thinking, yes, but ultimately on topic.
Widget, your research is much appreciated by me and a full accounting, on another thread if you must, would be most welcome. Lacking that at present, if I may respond to your Cliff's Notes version.
I cannot disagree with anything you say but I can answer to the differing personal views angle. I am quoting the entire post because it is so informative, hope you don't mind. The short answer is, you and I are poles apart in some aspects about what is important to us in listening to music. We are two people who equally enjoy the experience and that is the only thing that matters.
So, where I am coming from. Yes, I am aware of and have recent experience with analogue playback systems of eye watering quality. When I had the chance to change just the source to digital, I was knocked back by the feathered edges and softened, idealized analogue presentation of reality disappearing into clarity with digital. I have also made the comparison with my own very capable system, Dynavector cart and phono preamp included. Resolution is obviously more important to me than it is to you.
To the larger issue of soundstage, imaging and depth, my answer is I ultimately place little importance in it and I have not for some time. Having heard a few or more terrific mono rigs in the 1950s and 1960s, and another about seven years ago, I have one of those (went to) old school brains that knows that a one mike mono recording has TONS of spacial information about placement and depth. In the last outstanding mono encounter I was able to move a chair to a spot close to the speaker, close my eyes, forget about soundstage and have it all "appear" virtually before me. Any brain with even modest experience moving through a space and hearing things could do this. Modern listeners seem to have lost the ability to stop thinking about soundstage and can't do this. Even with stereo or multichannel playback. Without fail, expectations precede the music.
What I am saying is that the difference between what one hears expecting to have the equipment do it for us versus letting the natural processing of information provide the experience is a matter of neither degree nor kind. I happen to have the second best imaging speakers I have ever heard (I do have the ability to drop into modern mode and listen to the equipment instead of the music) and it is not what I enjoy most about them. That said, of all the elements of music, I consider both personally and objectively imaging and soundstage collectively to be the weakest and least important contributor. I am actually amazed by the current fixation with soundstage and imaging. I can remember when people never talked about this at all. With my particular historical view, it seems a fad. That does make us very different in that respect.
It also may explain why I find absolutely no downside to headphone listening, and why it delivers a not equal but better experience for me. Firstly, my brain provides a breathtaking 3D world when I listen to my Stax, and no it does not appear to be inside my head between my ears. I explained the how and why two paragraphs up. Secondly, with that taken care of and considering that is is a (relatively) minor matter to my listening enjoyment anyway, detail, resolution, and all that take, pun intended, center stage. The more clearly the music comes through, the deeper the possible drinking in of it. Given this context, you can see that the fuzzy edges of vinyl source are a huge detriment to getting what I want out of music.
It becomes obvious why I have gravitated to high end Stax headphones. If it is not too off topic, let me explain how far this choice, we are talking about choices after all, has taken me in the relativity of today's available equipment. Headphones take the room out of the equation and that is not trivial. My listening room has been importantly improved with treatment, but nothing like removing it altogether. Top drawer Stax earspeakers, as they are called, have one of the lightest transducers in all of audio, stretched tightly. The result, as a practical matter (compared to other moving objects creating sound) it changes shape instead of moving back and forth. Insert weird sci-fi soundtrack here. Faster and more sonically transparent than any other system yet devised. Talk about speed, response, linearity, accuracy of pitch and dynamics, better than anything else.
There is one more trick up the electrostatic sleeve, possibly unique to it. The superlight and thin but oh so pistonic diaphragm is between two close electrodes. This is a push pull system. Instead of a driver being moved by a voice coil being pushed and pulled or pushed and rebounded, the entire moving mass is being directly acted on by electrical forces. When one side is attracting it the other is repelling it. It is moving in tight lockstep with the signal. Think demodromic valve action with no springs. This presents a unique opportunity for the musical coup de gras. Stax calls it Pure balance. If you use a true balanced source, and a dual differential DAC can provide this, to a fully balanced electrostatic amplifier, the sonic possibilities pass beyond what is even theoretically possible with other current systems. The balanced signal energizes the two electrodes on either side of the diaphragm. The accuracy and linearity of this system is simply not possible without it. This is not a minor difference. When I went from RCA to balanced amplifier input (nothing else being changed, just the cables) it was STARTLING. It even sorted out the only frequency anomaly the phones had. All of these technologies are much better realized with headphones than speakers, as is the case with single driver systems in general. This is also the best bass response I have ever heard. I hope that wasn't too long and boring.
With resolution and response like this and with no need for my equipment to generate spaces for me, why would I ever listen to speakers? For company, and that's about it. So yes, Widget, we are different that way. Horses for courses? How about two different realities? I could never disagree with yours, but I have my own. It's not about better or worse, that's for sure.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
"We are two people who equally enjoy the experience and that is the only thing that matters."
Ultimately true, but I think it is also interesting and fun to learn about the "other" ways people enjoy this hobby.
"When I had the chance to change just the source to digital, I was knocked back by the feathered edges and softened, idealized analogue presentation of reality disappearing into clarity with digital. I have also made the comparison with my own very capable system, Dynavector cart and phono preamp included. Resolution is obviously more important to me than it is to you."
One man's feathered edges is another's escaping an artificially hard edged version of reality. As an example, take a look at a 4K demo reel of water lilies etc. I've heard people say things like it looks more "real" than being there... or take any of the current crop of 1080p LED backlit LCD TVs... playing a blue-ray disc of a California landscape, they do not look at all like looking out the window here in California. They are hyped up examples with the "clarity of digital"... I find it deplorable, but to be fair most people are ignorant of options or don't care, and then there are those who actually prefer the "crisp" presentation. I am not one of them.
Soundstage etc. I agree that much of the "head in the vice" locked in imaging like you can get from excellent mini-monitors is hi-fi trick or gimmick that is not found in reality... it can be an aural holography that is fun but for me at least not a goal.
"Having heard a few or more terrific mono rigs in the 1950s and 1960s, and another about seven years ago, I have one of those (went to) old school brains that knows that a one mike mono recording has TONS of spacial information about placement and depth. In the last outstanding mono encounter I was able to move a chair to a spot close to the speaker, close my eyes, forget about soundstage and have it all "appear" virtually before me."
I have heard amazing pre-stereo recordings (all analog naturally) that when played back on a great stereo system (preferably with a mono cartridge) can create an amazing sense of space. I have no idea how they did that!
"I am actually amazed by the current fixation with soundstage and imaging. I can remember when people never talked about this at all. With my particular historical view, it seems a fad."
I remember talking about it with my audio nerd friends and trying to achieve it back in the '70s... I built a pair of mini-monitors and was happily surprised at how well they pulled that "effect" off. As far as how important that particular aspect is to me, I'll just say that the 1400 Arrays are among the best speakers I have heard in this regard and absolutely best the Everests in this area... I would much rather listen to the Everests as they sound much closer to "reality" to me. If I come home and listen to a symphony right after being at the symphony the disappointment I used to always feel has vanished. The scale, the impact and yes the imaging are all there. A live symphony from the 10th row dead center orchestra seat presents an image much like the softer "feather edged" one I get with these speakers.
"It also may explain why I find absolutely no downside to headphone listening, and why it delivers a not equal but better experience for me. Firstly, my brain provides a breathtaking 3D world when I listen to my Stax, and no it does not appear to be inside my head between my ears."
For me the headphone experience is simply un-fulfilling. All of the data is there, but without the excitation of our largest organ, the skin. I find it un-compelling and I lose interest rather quickly. I like feeling a kettle drum in my gut and feel immersed in a field of music. I don't disagree that Stax headphones are amazing in their ability to convey data, but to me they don't inspire me the way a live performance or a top flight in-room playback system can.
Yes Clark, while we may both listen to the same drummer we certainly march to a different beat of the drum.
Widget
Tho not audio, my analogy is ... I've worn corrective lenses since HS. When I ride they won't fit under goggles, so I don't use them . Besides my eyes getting better w/o the correction, the world is softer and I enjoy the feathering. Many HD televisions are so sharp that the detail is distracting. Now I only wear the glasses to drive.
In fact I do a bit with Photoshop tuning up old pix. When over sharpened, they look terrible.
In the 60's , when you bought a tape deck , they usually enclosed a demo tape. I remember a cassette that came with my Panasonic unit. Incredible sound, no hiss, great dynamics ..wow. could never duplicate it with my recordings and wondered how they did that ?I have heard amazing pre-stereo recordings (all analog naturally) that when played back on a great stereo system (preferably with a mono cartridge) can create an amazing sense of space.I have no idea how they did that!.
Widget
Re: vinyl : I bought a Eurythmics LP that is DMM'ed. It surpasses the CD of same album.
Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles
YSince my predilection to audio detail is not a universal trait, this has me thinking about why I feel this way. How did I arrive at this? My best guess is my history of close encounters with musicians playing music.
Back in the day a certain degree of euphonic presentation was perfectly acceptable to me, even after I knew the difference. I do know what everyone else is talking about. I have been through 180 gram vinyl, vacuum tubes, cassette tapes, bipolar transistor output stages, many, many speaker types. Every version of audio, it seems, that has its own obvious imprint slapped on what went into the mike. I enjoyed it all but always felt I was not 100% to what I wanted to hear.
Then, starting ten or fifteen years ago I became quite adept at spending quality time within ten feet or less of musicians playing. For someone who is not really a musician I have become uncommonly good at getting in their space while they are doing their thing. I'm not pushy, just appreciated as a knowledgeable fan of their music. You can go on about where your favorite seat is to hear musicians from. Mine is being among them when they rehearse facing each other. Lacking that, right in front of them.
This can give a listener a taste for hearing what went into the microphone. With large orchestras that would reinforce the tenth row center placement, but with smaller outfits, especially wholly or partially acoustic performances, the great seat is much, much closer. My favorite is hearing what the mike heard. At first blush the performer is performing to the audience, but of course that has not been true since the advent of the electric microphone. Ever since they have been performing for the microphone.
Interestingly to me, the in-the-band intimacy seems to be most successfully recorded when it is faked in the studio with isolated close miking of the participants. The detail of each source is fully revealed; carefully placed microphones at the group performance would not be as personal or defined. The recording process can't do what the brain does in the live circumstance, so recreating an analog of it in the studio better represents what we heard if we were there. You will not find me bemoaning the studio as an instrument.
Not that no one is doing it well. Neil Young seems to get acceptable quality recording in his barn/studio/whatever live with Crazy Horse. It is my understanding that only vocals go on separately. And then there is the From The Basement experience, brief and sadly long gone. Everything recorded live in a nice open basement studio. Sonic Youth and PJ Harvey never sounded better. I think the same place might be where Radiohead was captured so well.
The only thing better is to have the musician sitting cross legged on the floor of your off campus college room, playing and singing for you. I know this because that happened to me when Dan Fogelberg, pre fame, stopped by with a friend and stayed for hours playing lots of Stephen Stills material, his fixation at that point in time. Stylistically he hadn't softened up his edges yet. Just a steel string, a voice and some great music. And no mike. Let me repeat the experience of a seat five feet from the Chicago Symphony String Quartet in a purpose designed acoustically perfect tiny theater in the round. I can say with authority, screw tenth row center with smaller ensembles.
So. My preferences could perhaps be considered more informed and less bizarre than they might at first appear. When you hear a lot of reality close up and personal, it is not off-putting to hear all that detail in the reproduction. As close as you can possibly get, please.
When it comes to visual detail, I think the vastly smaller wavelengths involved play a different game. Acuity and information density are normally very, very high and it is difficult to come up with a fully convincing reproductive analog for it. The only mitigating circumstance it the very low refresh rate of the brain/optic nerve combo. Having been in photography and filmmaking, I noticed two things immediately when first confronted with a theater screen showing what a Christie system can do. 1) It looked digital, just like a still image. Not a bad thing for me, it's just that I spent so long making and viewing silver based images and films that I know the difference a little faster than no time at all. 2) The corners were perfectly sharp, in that they looked exactly like every other part of the screen. I appreciated that immensely.
You will find that good mono works the same with only one speaker. Better, if you ask me.I have heard amazing pre-stereo recordings (all analog naturally) that when played back on a great stereo system (preferably with a mono cartridge) can create an amazing sense of space. I have no idea how they did that!
I have no ready explanation why I am immune from the seductive siren call of body slam. I enjoy it live with acoustic bass but I don't miss it at all at home. A possible reason, I personally find loud boring. Even and perhaps especially with large symphonic orchestras. Amplification has been invented and I find the 19th Century trick of massed instrumentation to the service of volume not even cute any more. Free bowing helps a little, but not much. I don't pretend to have common tastes and sensibilities, so please don't be offended. Not me, but I do know that a few hard core bass heads who otherwise love their headphones have considered a subwoofer for that slam. I expect that if a pair of Everest 2s landed here in a flying saucer I might well change my mind about this issue.For me the headphone experience is simply un-fulfilling. All of the data is there, but without the excitation of our largest organ, the skin. I find it un-compelling and I lose interest rather quickly. I like feeling a kettle drum in my gut and feel immersed in a field of music. I don't disagree that Stax headphones are amazing in their ability to convey data, but to me they don't inspire me the way a live performance or a top flight in-room playback system can.
Will I wake up some morning, turn around and dig out my turntable and tube gear? Stay tuned but don't hold your breath. My mind is open, but be warned that my really unpopular opinions I keep to myself.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
Interesting and enlightening... In my college days among other things I studied music recording and spent a fair amount if time in the studio and on stage... a very different experience from being an audience member. I find it interesting how there are so few musicians who are also "audiophiles ". There are notable exceptions, but for the most part musicians seem to derive their pleasure in an entirely different way than most of us obsessed with "accurate" reproduction.
Now while we may not be talking about pickup trucks or Italian sports cars we have left the topic of Perfect Sound Forever too.
Widget
I can fix that. Great book. I can't promise you will enjoy it, but chances are you won't be able to put it down.
Now while we may not be talking about pickup trucks or Italian sports cars we have left the topic of Perfect Sound Forever too.
Widget
As for the first part, working creative musicians might just tend to feel about music like I feel about sports. It is something to do, not watch. Not a passive activity to obsess about. And also perhaps when they are the audience they relate the details with muscle memory and direct relation to their own experience.
My take on your experience is that you and the other musicians were crafting a presentation and the one question, the entire point really, was how it sounds to the audience. So instead of listening to it for enjoyment you were monitoring the music. FOH may be the best place to monitor sound reinforcement, but it is usually no where near, literally and figuratively, the best seat in the house.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
Having sat in the drummer's chair for years when I played in bands, I never got the jones for headphones at home. I gave it a fair shot with some very good AKG's, Sennheiser's, Beyer's and decent 'phone amps (also heard several Stax models), but no matter how good they were I always missed the tactile feel and enveloping sound of loudspeakers.
I may not be like other musicians that Duc describes, since I think music listening is an activity to obsess over, even if I can't be involved playing it. I'm fairly maniacal about speaker placement, resonance control, finding well-recorded music, amp-speaker matching, and so on.
Digital vs. analog is a bottomless can of worms IMO, a discussion that I've usually refrained from after having many.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
