What is wrong with digital reproduction?

[Ducatista47]

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

[demon]

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

[Ducatista47]

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!

[richluvsound]

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:blink:

Rich

[Donald]

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.

[Rusnzha]

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.

[Ducatista47]

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

[Ducatista47]

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

[Ducatista47]

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:blink:

Rich
It's all plastic to me! :D

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

[Mr. Widget]

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

[speakerdave]

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.

[Hoerninger]

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

[Skywave-Rider]

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.



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.

[SEAWOLF97]

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.


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

[speakerdave]

. . . . 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.

[Skywave-Rider]

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.

Thanks --- crystal.

[Rusnzha]

Originally posted by Ducatista47
My JoLida CD player has analog tube output and I love it. What tubes are you using?I'm using the Tung-Sol 5687s that it came with. I've read about the effects of using different brands of tubes and will check this out when my money situation improves.

[Ducatista47]

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.
Oh my yes. The only reason I think I have a leg to stand on when it comes to comparing with natural sound is my occasional forays to the local university music department's unamplified acoustic recitals. If it were not for that opportunity I would have to hang out in off campus housing to catch jam sessions.

"Who is that old fart and what is he doing here? Did he bring the beer?"

Edit: The local Park District nature center has acoustic jams, unamplified, in the A-frame every other Sunday afternoon. It is a very intimate setting. Everyone is within fifteen or twenty feet of the performers. A lot of really talented people show up, mostly older folks who have been playing all their lives. In addition to guitar, banjo, dulcimer, fiddle, percussion and the like, last week there was a lady playing stand up bass and singing. Check your local park district calendar!

Clark

[Ducatista47]

I'm using the Tung-Sol 5687s that it came with. I've read about the effects of using different brands of tubes and will check this out when my money situation improves.
I chose Tung-Sol 12AX7's to replace the cheap Chinese tubes that came with it. I had quite a choice at the local audio shop (lucky me). An informal survey of my tube head friends matched Tung-Sol with what I required. I was looking for the most neutral. They were far from the highest cost option.

Clark

[speakerdave]

Oh my yes. The only reason I think I have a leg to stand on when it comes to comparing with natural sound is my occasional forays to the local university music department's unamplified acoustic recitals. If it were not for that opportunity I would have to hang out in off campus housing to catch jam sessions.

"Who is that old fart and what is he doing here? Did he bring the beer?"

Clark

And the issue is not what a good engineer can create. It's a question of what the market will support.

I have a friend who agonized over his selection of components at Pacific Stereo in the '70's; the system still sounds semi-decent at low volume even with Quadraflex speakers (Pacific Stereo's house brand--he never did get around to upgrading), and he still has the components, but they are sitting unused somewhere. The last time we were there he was playing an iPod over an iPod base of some kind. After a couple of hints I finally just asked them to turn it off (and pissed off the more polite half of my household).

[Ducatista47]

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.)
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.
I have some great remasters, but many are compressed to hell in the current fashion. Inferior to the original. Buyer beware! I have a nice pressing of the Coltrane set on LP. I wish you lived across the street so we could compare.


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).I mentioned VTL recordings in another thread. I would recommend one in particular but it is difficult to find and expensive. I would hold it up as an example of ultra realistic (and satisfying) analog recording. Like I said elsewhere, the room it takes you to is not the best room, but you are really in that room. Here is a link to an SACD of it, of all things. It is the vinyl and redbook CD that are hard to get.
http://www.fone.it/shop/schede/SACD046.pdf

You may find this excerpt interesting:


1992
About this recording
The heart and soul of any recorded sound must surely be the acoustical properties of the room or hall itself, and the microphones being used within that acoustic.
I designed the acoustics of the VTL studio in Chino, California, for ‘purist’
recording-techniques only, with all the music being played ‘live’ and captured straight on to 2 stereo tracks...

Measuring 40 ft x 30 ft with a cathedral-peak ceiling of 16 ft height, the entire acoustic treatment is finished in Oregon Oak and Douglas Fir timbers with continuous Helmholtz tuned resonance absorbing slots.
The floor is rubber over high-density particle board over concrete with a resultant reverberation time of approximately 11⁄2 seconds, providing a totally neutral and resonance-free acoustic.
Every single piece of equipment in the (entirely tube, entirely analogue) recording chain is of my design and is built in our factory in Chino. Somewhat unusually, this includes the microphones themselves.
The MANLEY `GOLD REFERENCE’ STEREO CONDENSER microphone is
the centre-piece and the single microphone used for this recording.
No other additional microphones were used at all. It is of the so-called `large capsule’ variety, having a diameter of 11/4 inches with 3-micron gold-deposition mylar diaphragms.
The stereo version has one fixed capsule and one rotatable capsule with the `pick-up pattern’ being continuously variable...
my most often-used choice being that of `figure of 8’ in the classic Blumlein
coincident crossed-pair mode. For our own recordings we use custom-versions of the `REFERENCE GOLD’ microphone, in that the entire vacuum tube amplification is built into the microphone body, (8 triodes in the stereo
microphone!), and no transformer coupling or external amplification is used at all.

The microphone is connected via VTL `Quad’ double screened cable right into a unity-gain mixer for level-setting and metering. The mixer is based around the MANLEY REFERENCE preamplifier and can mix up to 10 microphones into 2 busses.
Mixing of microphones is achieved by each input having its own dedicated grid, and not by the usual “pot and buildout resistor” method as found in every console in use in the recording industry. No equalization of any kind is employed, (although we do have MANLEY PULTECS and SHELF-PARAMETRIC Equalizers on hand to patch in if needed, say, with electronic based instruments that could arise on a rock or pop session). The patch-bay itself is comprised of audiophile-quality 4mm silver-plated
banana-plugs, and not of the commonly used `tip-ring-sleeve’ post-office style jack plugs. All fixed wiring in the patch-bay and control-room is VTL “White wire” 3 x pure copper and 2 x silver cores in teflon.

The 1⁄2 inch 2-track Studer C37 analogue tape deck has been fully updated by us mechanically and contains only our Manley pure tube circuitry. At 15 ips this machine is flat from 20 HZ to 20 KHZ ±.2 dB. Hours and hours and hours of listening decided us to make the CD releases from the analogue master-tapes (transferred through our MANLEY 20-bit Analogue/Digital converter) in preference to using simultaneously-recorded digital masters we’d made at the sessions, also directly recorded through our converter to both DASH and DAT storage media.
These recordings sound pretty darn good, but without the naturally rich and faithfully sonorous accuracy of analogue recording at its best.

AGFA type 468 tape was used at 200 nano-Webers, but run somewhat on the `hot’ side, (+5dB), without any kind of noise-reduction.
Again, we chose to accept a small amount of tape hiss, in preference to the sterility and inherent phase-shift distortion produced by (solid-state) noise-reduction.

We would welcome any comments (favorable or otherwise!) you might like to make on the sound of our records...

David Manley

A Manley Gold Reference mike is currently $8000 US. I knew tape noise reduction systems had their problems, but I did not know that phase shift was one of them.

Very thoughtful, Peter. Thank you.
Clark

[Hoerninger]

I wish you lived across the street so we could compare.

:)

I'll go through all that reading, very interesting topic. Thank you.
_________
Peter

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think Clark's point is only relevent to those with audiophile taste.

I mean the bulk of digital music sold is down loaded by 18-30 year old's and played on an Ipod.

The more classy the playback system the more frustrated the user become's with the recording production values and any aspects of the D/A process that are not optimum.

When I had the Lavy Dac it was painful to listen to many of my recently purchased CD.s.

I think a lot has happened to the way CD are engineered today that are not produced on mainstream labels. At the other extreme the audiophile labels are excellent but not always the stuff you want to listen to.

A Blue Note label disk of a Jazz recording made at the Blue Note Club NY City is very close to what I rcall hearing when I visited NY in Sept last year.

In the larger more elaborate recording facilities there is an emphasis on Analgue processing and mixing being available for those who prefer it.

That flavour of recording has more attitude and no doubt suits certain genres.

Ian

[readswift]

WHOOAAH!!

:applaud::applaud::applaud: (http://www.zetex.com/literature/pdf/SCCLZBR2.pdf)

many ppl goin to have issue because of this little guy

[boputnam]

Hi, Clark...

You re-visit an "age old" argument, but with a refreshing take on it. I agree with much of what Dave posted here....


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.Dave, one of my mentors in SR challenges my ambivalence (slightly negative...) about digital consoles. To me, their functionality and feature set just do not make-up for the lack of the analogue sound. Even with all the winkie plugins emulating fabulous and often irreplaceable vintage outboard gear, they do not sound as wonderful as analogue. He challenges that maybe digital sounds too "whatever" because we have spent our entire life in the analogue realm - it is what we know. Digital nowadays is actually a more pure reproduction, but it is not familiar. It is an interesting argument.

On the church issue - ugh! So, true. A few weekends back while chasing JGB Band around the midwest, I spent a couple days with my sister - she and her husband are some sort of leaders, and direct and perform in the music program at their church. The church is pondering a $90,000 upgrade to their system. "Everything sucks". So, I spent the better part of a day there tweaking their sucky stuff, and using Smaart did the best I could in EQ'ing their 4 different zones, put them back on conventional "it doubles as a hammer" ball mics and presto-chango, they've had the best string of services musically they can remember. Their gain structure was totally wrong, they did not understand their gear and all their "corrections" were sapping system power. Ugly. Worst of the experience is, the pastor insists on using a podium mic and sings - his mic is set for speaking and you can imagine the imbalance when he sings. No concept of what is going on. Besides all that, IMO, they need almost nothing. The voices carry wonderfully thought the sanctuary and save for a little support for the acoustic guitars, they should do better things with their $90k. (Rant nearly done). Churches are the single largest spenders in pro audio these days. Every single one of them are tackling sound finding it attracts and retains the newer parishoners. Weird....

[Mr. Widget]

Churches are the single largest spenders in pro audio these days. Every single one of them are tackling sound finding it attracts and retains the newer parishoners. Weird....I was recently involved in designing and putting in an audio system for a "Meditation Center." Translation, new age California church alternative.:blink:

The problem with these places is a total lack of understanding of how sound systems operate. Someone needs to develop a system that is idiot proof. Sort of a, god forbid, Bose "Lifestyle" plug and play sound reinforcement system. Hey Harman! Are you listening?


Widget

[Fred Sanford]

I recently had a similar experience- a local tiny church near here had a first-glance decent system (Mackie board, QSC power), but it sounded awful. A little digging around during their down-time, and a lot came out- blown woofer, mix of OK/crappy mics, bad connections, bad gain structure, stupid labelling, sources forced to mono within a matrix before the board (when there were stereo inputs available on the board), etc. etc. etc.

I re-wired and re-labelled, we're about 90% done. I called the contractor that sold them their video system & matrix, and after asking the owner two questions about his installation that he couldn't answer, he said, "Um...who ARE you? You're not from around here." I sent him a resume' and will be calling to follow up soon- his company has the contract for an AV system in the local resort/water park. Hmmmm...

But, yeah, big market in worship systems, and some manufacturers are really paying attention finally- that's another avenue I'm pursuing for employment. Housing market is absolutely tanked here, residential systems just aren't happening.

je

[boputnam]

Someone needs to develop a system that is idiot proof. Don't stop with churches!

All the BE's (band engineers) I work around lament the same. We must be pretty versatile systems engineers / techs to quickly decipher what has been done "to" the install by all the various pesky fingers that have had unknowledgeable access since the system installed, and what we can do in the time allowed to throw off a good show. Typically, we load-in 4- to 6-hrs before downbeat. That is mostly rehearsal time, during which we are staging the band, mic'ing the stage and then we steal time to dig through the system to try and understand. Cabling is crossed, crossovers are set horribly wrong, subs are way out of balance and then there's the "trivial" bit of tuning the system to the room. :baby: Lots of times the HE's (house engineers) save / copy my settings, but invariably, when we return six-months later, it's "let's start again...", except that more of their stuff has failed in the interim... Bad news.

[Ducatista47]

Hi, Clark...

To me, their functionality and feature set just do not make-up for the lack of the analogue sound. Even with all the winkie plugins emulating fabulous and often irreplaceable vintage outboard gear, they do not sound as wonderful as analogue.


And hi to you, Bo. :) Nice of you to be kind about my untimely resurrection of what many consider a dead horse topic. Pardon my selectively bolding your paragraph, but in reference to my original diffuse rant, what is it you find more satisfying about analogue (I'll bow to the proper and correct European spelling)? Is it simply better? More accurate? Closer to live sound? More pleasing to hear?

I am thinking against a background of your admonition to bring a system to absolute neutral and live with it for a while before rejecting the new sound. I think getting used to real, live sound before judging a reproduction system is a must.

Clark

[Ian Mackenzie]

I always equate Yanky houses of worship with the Blues Brothers.

The Poms on the other hand take things a bit more seriously with real recordings of (real chiors) at well known chapels in Cambridge.

I think they take their Hifi dare I say a tad more seriously but that is another story:rotfl:

[speakerdave]

I always equate Yanky houses of worship with the Blues Brothers. . . .

. . . if only

[Skywave-Rider]

...I re-wired and re-labelled, we're about 90% done. I called the contractor that sold them their video system & matrix, and after asking the owner two questions about his installation that he couldn't answer, he said, "Um...who ARE you? You're not from around here." I sent him a resume' and will be calling to follow up soon- his company has the contract for an AV system in the local resort/water park. Hmmmm...
je

Way to go.:thmbsup:

[Ducatista47]

The more classy the playback system the more frustrated the user become's with the recording production values and any aspects of the D/A process that are not optimum.

When I had the Lavy Dac it was painful to listen to many of my recently purchased CD.s.

Ian
Ian, I was wondering why you let the Lavry go. I'll take that as an answer? Should we take that as a cautionary tale, or should we still try to get our two channel systems to be as accurate as we can make them?

Clark

[Ian Mackenzie]

Clark,

I sold it because I was not using it often enough to justify owning it.

At that point in time I was spending more time holding a soldering iron and playing DVD music disk.

The same thing happened to the 4345's.

Sorry I am not a hoarder:D

I will answer your question in two parts:

Part one

The same issues were around in the vinyl days. We all loved dragging out our Sheffield Labs vinyl .

But today it is much easier to get a CD recording to market than a vinyl record 25 years ago. If you hear a band or artist you like "live'' dont expect high production values unless they are a super group or signed with a major labels. All the hi tech home recording gear is marketed to make it look easy.

Hence there is a lot more badly engineered recordings of otherwise very good music. You just need to weed out the good from the bad or put up with it. So its pot luck.

The saving grace is now some hi end lables are offered 24 bit downloads.

Part two

Reproducing music in you home is about creating an experience*.

There are more dissatisfied audiophiles around who spend a fortune on audio equipment they have selected than the mainstream consumer who walks in a hi fi shop and let the salesman sell them a complete system.

There are many pitfalls to assembling your own system and they are to numerous to mention here including spending rediculous sums of money on a set-up for a room that is just not suitable.

Hi end set-up = hi end room
Hi end amp = hi end source
Hi end speakers = hi end everything else
Hi end drivers = hi end crossovers + hi end crossover design

The list goes on. And stay away from Ebay

There is no simple answer other then buy something that fits the purpose.

Home audio hi fidelity equipment is for home use. Pro audio equipment is for people who work in the industry. There is nothing wrong with the equipment usually its the people who end up using it and the situations they are in.

That said if your loudspeakers are razer sharp accuracy you will get the experience but you will hear all the mistakes and problems with the recording. Pure piston mode loudspeakers are the worst offenders imho.

What to do about the problem. Well I have more then one system and the better system only gets my attention late at night.

Back to the Lavry is a wonderful DA convertor and has a quality headphone amp built in.

[cooky1257]

I always equate Yanky houses of worship with the Blues Brothers.

The Poms on the other hand take things a bit more seriously with real recordings of (real chiors) at well known chapels in Cambridge.

I think they take their Hifi dare I say a tad more seriously but that is another story:rotfl:

..And as for the churches in the godless hole that is Australia?:D

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well even the Catholics are not getting the numbers they once did.

(even the Catholic church is copping some flack for the indiscretion's some of the priest..no wonder the attendance is dropping)

As for me I go to the Temple every Saturday afternoon to listen to Hendrix.

There is only one God and he's Black!

Edit : Someone please turn on the forums spam filter.

[Rolf]

Hi folks.

There is nothing wrong with digital recordings/productions as long as they is taken care of from the beginning ... that is in the recording studio. Unfortunately most of the recordings today is made for radio (FM) using MP3 or other packed audio.

If one listen to a hi quality recording, played on a high quality player, it sounds much better than any previous analog recording .. without the hiss and pops that is on those.

If one had the Internet in earlier days one would heard people say: "the stereo has ruined my listening ... the way from 78 rpm to 33/1/3 is no good ... and now ... from analog to digital they say: oh no: oh no: it sounds terrible...

Get a hold of yourself. Do you really expect that a cd player at a cost of about $1000 can make you happy? No. Double it at least 5 times and listen! Then most of you probably won't complain anymore.

Goodgreef

[Ian Mackenzie]

Rolf,

The expression is get a grip but any way.

[Regis]

I agree with Rolf. Many of the modern smooth jazz artists like Bob James, take great pain to master their product very, very well. I am running a Sony CDP-D12 pro CD player (as some of you might remember, it was the last one available for sale in the United States, when I got it). It ran me all of $680 brand new, including shipping. My only complaint, is that the huge remote control doesn't have an eject button.

The CD player supports XLR and that's where I think audio makes a difference. Ever since I went to a full XLR system, I have not been found wanting as far as the reproduction goes (except for my foray into the Four Way world :D). It sounds very clear, very detailed with no harshness or brittleness whatsoever.

From the source to the amp, it's all XLR. I find it amazing how many hugely expensive CD players support RCA or unbalanced jacks only. The notable exception were the Sony ES series and many of these aren't supported parts-wise any longer (if the laser goes, you are screwed).

[demon]

Do you really expect that a cd player at a cost of about $1000 can make you happy? No. Double it at least 5 times and listen! Then most of you probably won't complain anymore.
32ooo$ ??
must be kidding!
i dont listen to such monstrosities.


mikey

[Ian Mackenzie]

Possibly one avenue most are not aware of is you can make a CD player that will perform as well as the moost expensive stand alone with a PC

You need a Lynx 2B card, ELAC software and a windows PC. By ripping the CD to the HD any errors are eliminated

There are other approached using external card but requires AES card for jitter free output.

The reason the Lynx card works is many studios use Lynx in the conversion process. These particular cards have very low noise and very low jitter and are regarded as the industry standard for Sound Cards. They also have many advanced options not found in a standard CD player for control of conversion and filtering. Outputs are balanced.

Dont bother with a Soundblaster.

The cards sell for around $1000 and offer 2 inputs 6 outputs, add a quiet PC and software and you have a very hi end player and a music server for less than $2000.00

I seriously doubt you would find a $5000 or 10,000 cd player in a modern recording facility.

[Rolf]

32ooo$ ??
must be kidding!
i dont listen to such monstrosities.


mikey

As far as I have learned 5x1000 is 5000. Not 32000.;)

[Rolf]

Possibly one avenue most are not aware of is you can make a CD player that will perform as well as the moost expensive stand alone with a PC

You need a Lynx 2B card, ELAC software and a windows PC. By ripping the CD to the HD any errors are eliminated

There are other approached using external card but requires AES card for jitter free output.

The reason the Lynx card works is many studios use Lynx in the conversion process. These particular cards have very low noise and very low jitter and are regarded as the industry standard for Sound Cards. They also have many advanced options not found in a standard CD player for control of conversion and filtering. Outputs are balanced.

Dont bother with a Soundblaster.

The cards sell for around $1000 and offer 2 inputs 6 outputs, add a quiet PC and software and you have a very hi end player and a music server for less than $2000.00

I seriously doubt you would find a $5000 or 10,000 cd player in a modern recording facility.

I have never heard about this Ian, but it sounds interesting. One problem (for me) is that one probably must have a PC in the living-room, and I have no place for it there. If this card come with a RF control problem is solved, as I have the PC upstairs. An IR control don't work thru the ceiling.

I believe that the original CD sounds better than the same if burned and played on a CD player. You say "ripping to HD", and problem solved, using this system?

[SEAWOLF97]

Hi folks
Get a hold of yourself. Do you really expect that a cd player at a cost of about $1000 can make you happy? No. Double it at least 5 times and listen! Then most of you probably won't complain anymore.
Goodgreef


As far as I have learned 5x1000 is 5000. Not 32000.;)

1.$1000 doubled = 2000
2, 2000 doubled =4000
3. 4000 doubled =8000
4. 8000 doubled =16000
5. 16000 doubled =32000

1000 doubled 5x =32000 is correct following your original post, just like Mikey said.



I believe that the original CD sounds better than the same if burned and played on a CD player.

in the analog world , YES ,
digital - NO - sounds the same. There is no loss in multiple generations.

[Rolf]

Well, I guess I am not good enough to express what I mean in English.:( But what I mean was $5000. Not $32000.

Sorry for the confusion.:o:

[hjames]

Well, I guess I am not good enough to express what I mean in English.:( But what I mean was $5000. Not $32000.

Sorry for the confusion.:o:

Its ok - we love ya just the same :applaud:

... and your little dog, too!

[Rolf]

Its ok - we love ya just the same :applaud:

... and your little dog, too!


:D

[demon]

oh dear, i thougt you are the dog?!
i was actually very impressed...

:applaud:

sorry for the confusion too (it was intended though).
mikey