Quiet_Hollow Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 My system is specifically tailored to extract every once of sound out of digital sources. CD, Blu-Ray, solid state storage. The higher the sampling rate, the better. I've been critically listening to digital source material for so long, that when I listen to a record or tape, it's sounds like I'm listening to the record or tape. I don't find it endearing at all. I find it distracting. With digital, it sounds like I'm in a studio or in an theater where stuff just leaps out from absolute silence. That's what I like. Comes from listening almost exclusively to a CD Walkman and good ear buds for the last eleven years. I am most certain, very few have heard just how good digital can sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 OP, here is an simplification that graphically depicts what happens during most rasterizing/digitization that is not based on vector but rather bit mapping. you can up the rate and depth at which something is sample, it's all about the resolution. the bit depth and sample rate can be so deep that the human being can not distinguish the difference but it will never be continuous tone... left side analog/lp... right side cd/digital... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebrof Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I am most certain, very few have heard just how good digital can sound. And even fewer have heard just how good analog can sound, only because it is now more if a niche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 For me it's because we hear in analog unless you know person who's ear is a digital device. Analog for me is the truest representation of the music recorded or live. Like all things digital it has given us ease of use but at what cost or better yet loss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenM Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 left side analog/lp... right side cd/digital... Rather ironic that you use two digital photos to try and illustrate the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenM Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Once CD's are close to 50 years old we will see on the average how many are playable. I've run into several cds lately that skip and won't play through leaving some of my favorite songs unplayable. Not sure how it matters really, at least not in this day and age. Even ten year olds can make a lossless rips of their CDs as backups in case the original medium gets damaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Oh yeah, the high frequency content on CD's is so accurate, You must sample at least 2X the highest frequency you want to reproduce in order to get proper performance with digital sound. The example seems to be sampling at around half of that. Research Bode and Nyquist's theorem for further information and clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Once CD's are close to 50 years old we will see on the average how many are playable. I've run into several cds lately that skip and won't play through leaving some of my favorite songs unplayable. Not sure how it matters really, at least not in this day and age. Even ten year olds can make a lossless rips of their CDs as backups in case the original medium gets damaged. OK Stephen I see your another digital robot (Pro digital), could all be well and true about your choice of this medium but I'll always favor analog to digital and that would include my long lost Alpine cassette player (hiss and all) from my car[] Even my old worn and tattered hissing cassete's had much more realism to my ears and when I went digital in the car I was seriously depressed with all three formats I've tried to include Mini-Disc/CD and piped in iPod (all in lossless formats) and have never felt or heard the same as I did with my analog cassette's or in the house on my snap, crackle and pop machine[] How one listens and interprets is and always has been subjective so to each his/her own[] Cheers p.s. I am showing/teaching my sons the difference in these formats and they may end up favoring the digital parade but not without tasting the era that brought me to this point[8] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Let's face it, lots of lps are easier on the ears,provide better overall sound, soundstage and musicality. Me, I don't want to hear every friggin note on a recording, I want music. Now if you live in some mechanical, mathematical spatial universe inhabited by those whose clothes are neatly ironed at all times, then puleeze drown yourself in digitalis. Me, I'm not ascared of some pops an whistles as I slide down the rabbit hole of musical nirvana. You are missing the point here. Vinyl can sound very good... when new and in pristine condition. With age and no matter how careful you are vinyl gets noisier and that is quite a distraction, at least for me. Also, every time a vinyl record is played it loses some of it's high frequency content. Or try ignoring the grit and sand tossed into my ear canal by a typical cd played through most even high-end playback systems. Add a soupcon of steel while you're at it. Oh and a so subtle electrical distortion that will have you starting off at a reasonable hearing level, only to quickly surrender to fatigue, and crank that sucker down low, where the grating on nerves begins to ease. Have you ever compared a studio master tape to the vinyl record and/or a CD? In the late 70s or early 80s I finagled a first gen copy of Kansas' Leftoverture on RTR tape from a concert promoter who had connections with the studio that did the recording. I compared it on my system to the vinyl and to the CD version. The closest to the tape was the CD. The vinyl album had softer dynamics and sounded compressed in direct comparison with either CD or the tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenM Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 OK Stephen I see your another digital robot (Pro digital) I'm not sure why that particular statement gets me branded as a "digital robot", but OK. How one listens and interprets is and always has been subjective so to each his/her own Cheers Surely. I don't begrudge anyone that prefers vinyl or cassettes to CDs anymore than I hate someone for liking chocolate over vanilla ice cream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 left side analog/lp... right side cd/digital... Rather ironic that you use two digital photos to try and illustrate the difference. how in the world am I suposed to illustrate continous tone on the computer? the idea should resonate, if one can open his mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invidiosulus Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Oh yeah, the high frequency content on CD's is so accurate, You must sample at least 2X the highest frequency you want to reproduce in order to get proper performance with digital sound. The example seems to be sampling at around half of that. Research Bode and Nyquist's theorem for further information and clarification. Indeed, but at CD sample rate you will still only get a crude approximation of the actual waveform in the upper frequencies. Cymbals always sound more natural to me on Vinyl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invidiosulus Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 left side analog/lp... right side cd/digital... Rather ironic that you use two digital photos to try and illustrate the difference. how in the world am I suposed to illustrate continous tone on the computer? the idea should resonate, if one can open his mind. What camera do you have that records in continuous tone? Even my analog cameras are limited by the size and quality of the film grain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenM Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 the idea should resonate, if one can open his mind. Actually what you illustrated was another statement of yours: it's all about the resolution. the bit depth and sample rate can be so deep that the human being can not distinguish the difference Is the sample rate of CD good enough? That's at least somewhat debatable (although this link: http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1 seems to imply that in and of itself, 16 bit is adequate). How many megapixels do you need in a camera before you can't tell the difference between a digital photo and film? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Cymbals always sound more natural to me on Vinyl. Funny you should mention that. The first time I ever heard cymbals that sounded like cymbals was on the CD I have of Miles Davis "Kind of Blue," that analog landmark of both music and engineering. It was when I just unpacked my first Ebay purchased Panasonic digital amp. It was that experience which sold me both on digital amps as well as proving that a CD COULD deliver a first class listening experience. Of course, for those of us who've way overstayed our welcome here, the periodic re-appearance of this thread is hardly fair as we've pretty well exhausted it several times over. Just for the record, again, I will say, yet again, that I could care less about media or format. It is about the music and there is great music, and crappy music, to be found on anything from an Elcaset to a cylinder. Those who limit themselves in any way are doing just that. If you are good with limitations, fine. Me, I want it ALL. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Let's face it, lots of lps are easier on the ears,provide better overall sound, soundstage and musicality. Me, I don't want to hear every friggin note on a recording, I want music. Now if you live in some mechanical, mathematical spatial universe inhabited by those whose clothes are neatly ironed at all times, then puleeze drown yourself in digitalis. Me, I'm not ascared of some pops an whistles as I slide down the rabbit hole of musical nirvana. You are missing the point here. Vinyl can sound very good... when new and in pristine condition. With age and no matter how careful you are vinyl gets noisier and that is quite a distraction, at least for me. Also, every time a vinyl record is played it loses some of it's high frequency content. Not missing it Don as much as having a different opinion based on something we all know to be subjective, I won't take the wear and tear away from you on the vinyl however I will inject the to me like you on your opinion of CD/digital I don't think digital sounds very good from the get go therefore I don't have the worry of waiting for digital degredation when I think (or at least what my ears hear) is missing from the onset! Or try ignoring the grit and sand tossed into my ear canal by a typical cd played through most even high-end playback systems. Add a soupcon of steel while you're at it. Oh and a so subtle electrical distortion that will have you starting off at a reasonable hearing level, only to quickly surrender to fatigue, and crank that sucker down low, where the grating on nerves begins to ease. Have you ever compared a studio master tape to the vinyl record and/or a CD? In the late 70s or early 80s I finagled a first gen copy of Kansas' Leftoverture on RTR tape from a concert promoter who had connections with the studio that did the recording. I compared it on my system to the vinyl and to the CD version. The closest to the tape was the CD. The vinyl album had softer dynamics and sounded compressed in direct comparison with either CD or the tape. Man Don, I would have loved to just hear that R to R tape of that album (love Kansas) and have had a similar experience listening to an original tape track of Glen Hughes (Trapeze) against his CD release and felt just the opposite but then again R to R tape is still in the analog realm[] What StephenM likes in that totally black and silent background is what I hate (did the vinyl really have softer dynamics or was it just that dead quite background?) so here we are back at square one to what sounds better and to whom[^o)] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 OK Stephen I see your another digital robot (Pro digital) I'm not sure why that particular statement gets me branded as a "digital robot", but OK. I've not branded you Stephen, just looking at your first couple post here tells me you prefer digtal to analog. You did kind of defend the format with your response of a 10 year old being able to rip for years to come but I'm just an old school deadbeat who know's the inevitable will be total satellite feed to all of us of course at my age that will be passed on to my wee ones, I'm hoping to keel over with the vinyl brush in hand[] LOL How one listens and interprets is and always has been subjective so to each his/her own Cheers Surely. I don't begrudge anyone that prefers vinyl or cassettes to CDs anymore than I hate someone for liking chocolate over vanilla ice cream. And hopefully you did not take my assertion of digital robot as derogatory buy any means, I can see you have your preference but are OK with mine[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 It is about the music and there is great music, and crappy music, to be found on anything from an Elcaset to a cylinder. Those who limit themselves in any way are doing just that. If you are good with limitations, fine. Me, I want it ALL. I'm not Dave and do listen to it any way I can wherever I am, got some nice Manfred Mann coming thru my Cambridge Soundworks on my PC right now as a matter a fact[Y] I also know if anyone has great experience and knowledge of digital recording Dave it's you[] Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Just for the record, again, I will say, yet again, that I could care less about media or format. It is about the music and there is great music, and crappy music, to be found on anything from an Elcaset to a cylinder. Nice... [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Oh yeah, the high frequency content on CD's is so accurate, You must sample at least 2X the highest frequency you want to reproduce in order to get proper performance with digital sound. The example seems to be sampling at around half of that. Research Bode and Nyquist's theorem for further information and clarification. Indeed, but at CD sample rate you will still only get a crude approximation of the actual waveform in the upper frequencies. No. As long as one samples at 2X (or higher) the highest frequency to be reproduced the anti-aliasing filter will exactly reconstruct the original waveform Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.