Digital vs analog

[Quiet_Hollow]

Good points Neil.

[LarryC]

I'd have to hear the shootout to form my own opinions.

Larry, my door is open.

I appreciate that! Too bad Texas is so far away. Maybe if I get to another Hope pilgrimage some time. A lot of great forum people in TX.

[DrWho]

"digital is a subset of analog"

NONSENSE

That is old world Newtoian thinking. The flowing river analogy.

Old world thinking? Wow.

Just to clarify my point in that regard - the problems with digital have very little to do with the limits of quantization. It's all about the conversion into and out of that quantized realm, which turns out to be a very analog, continuous time domain problem. Certainly there is a bunch of discrete time theory required to know where you should end up, but at the end of the day, the limit of any digital system always comes down to the analog domain. In my opinion, it should be treated as no different as converting a signal from being encoded by air pressure to voltage to current to phase to whatever other encoding system you want to use. At the end of the day, all of these encoding systems live within the analog domain - it just so happens that "digital" can maintain perfect fidelity when implemented correctly - getting into and out of that convenient digital domain is the tricky part, and that's where the analog understanding of the world is very important. The reason it is a subset is because it doesn't exist without the analog (pun intended).

[DrWho]

So where's the bleeding-heart argument to go back to analog video?

I think I know a guy around these parts that still prefers analog pictures to digital pictures []

Having seen his work, I can agree with his sentiment.

That said, I wonder how much of that is cultural defined expectation - which gets into a discussion of whether or not a changing cultural expectation is a good thing or a bad thing?

[juniper8]

My wife brought home a cd, and she looked up the "numbers", she knows I'am a little off, when it comes to recordings. It came out that they were 8-7-11-, I knew I was in trouble before she put it in, it was so bad that it was unbearable, sounded like pa speakers stuffed with cotton balls and then someone hit the distortion button. She also picked up some mid 80's ADRM disks that werent very good either but, I never expect much when the brits record some types of music...

[DrWho]

The arguments about "digital being a subset of
analog" are, I believe, odd in light of the above discussion. I think
that recording industry giants--RIAA-member companies--really aren't
nice guys, and that they really don't care about SQ--rather only profit.
As long as they can, they will sell what they can sell regardless of SQ
(I'm thinking the mp3 marketplace now).

Ironically,
when interviews are performed - the vast majority of the consumer market
states a preference for better sound quality. If the recording industry
only wants to make money, then what's the argument for this supposed
intentional reduction of quality? Ignorance and apathy from the end
users? That seems a bit audiophile snobbish to me?

It makes sense
to me that mp3's incur a much lower cost of distribution than any
lossless format...but the mp3 encoding has very little do with small
crest factors, or the overall recording process in general.

Could it actually be that the reason recordings are intentionally
compressed (especially in the pop culture domain) is because the
dominant playback environment is going to be inside of a car, or while
working out, or some other noisy activity? Music for the masses has
become more of a soundtrack to our lives, versus the artistic event that
audiophiles enjoy. Why the heck wouldn't the record industry maximize
the enjoyment of the 90%'tile use case? And how in the world could that
be construed as shady business?

I think we have another
interesting cultural phenomenon happening - which is basically that the
accessibility to music creation has dramatically increased. It is
incredibly inexpensive for any garage band to make their own recordings -
and quite frankly, there is an art to mixing - and the majority of
"sound engineers" out there think they know what they're doing, but just
dish out garbage because they're simply not skilled at their
profession. It's not like the classical baroque period where only the
best musicians in the world have the full capacity to produce the
culturally dominant music experience. Even the whole idea of recording
is a relatively new concept that has absolutely exploded. However, I
don't come away from this hating on the vast inexperience that gets more
publicity these days. What I conclude is that music is very powerful
and people are far more concerned with the emotional expression. That's
why the crappy production can exist.

The unfortunate side to the audiophile hobby is that we take
great interest in the production quality and therefore that limits the
music we can fully enjoy. However, I think we should view that as a huge
downside to this hobby...certainly not a pillar of refinement or
elitism. Btw, don't get me wrong that awesome music with awesome
production quality isn't better for the audiophile....but the person
that only cares about the emotion doesn't give a rip about the
production provided it satisfies the emotional story.

All that to
say, I don't agree that the intentional compression makes the record
labels the big evil players in the industry. I personally would prefer
those mobile playback devices to have their own configurable compression
algorithms built in, but the cost and complexity of that would never
happen.

[DrWho]

My wife brought home a cd, and she looked up the "numbers", she knows I'am a little off, when it comes to recordings. It came out that they were 8-7-11-, I knew I was in trouble before she put it in, it was so bad that it was unbearable, sounded like pa speakers stuffed with cotton balls and then someone hit the distortion button. She also picked up some mid 80's ADRM disks that werent very good either but, I never expect much when the brits record some types of music...

What would happen if you heard that very same CD played back on a different system and it sounded amazing? I'm not saying that would happen with this particular disk, but I've heard a lot of music that sounds like garbage on Klipsch that sounds effectively perfect on other systems.

[Chris A]

Ignorance and apathy from the end
users? That seems a bit audiophile snobbish to me.

I don't think so. Here is an analog in the motion picture domain, and quality is a big deal in this domain, in fact so much so that up until the last 3 years, most studios and directors didn't use digital:

I'm also reading a couple of books on the subject, one of which is called "Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age
". Another book "Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business", written 20 years earlier, tells the exact same story. The big record label company execs aren't nice guys that care very much about whether or not your vinyl record came out warped or noisy from pressing, and don't care about CD music loudness wars unless it negatively affects sales. Not that this means that demand for low quality music hasn't got anything to do with the situation, it's just that the labels over time just lower their standards to the least common denominator approach.

I personally would prefer
those mobile playback devices to have their own configurable compression
algorithms built in, but the cost and complexity of that would never
happen.

iTunes has this function built into the PC or Mac iTunes app itself, and will convert/compress down when it is downloaded to the device.

Chris

[garyrc]

All analog is not vinyl. Neither is all digital CDs. Comparing vinyl to CDs is not comparing analog to digital; it's comparing analog records to digital CDs.

True. There is yet another confounding of variables: The care used in making the recording may be related (to a degree) to the format the recordists know will be used (if they know). E.g.:

Analog:

• I've never heard a Direct-to-Disk I didn't like (recording-wise, that is).
• All of my 15 i.p.s. half-track reel to reel tapes are good -- but I made them myself, my way.
• Even commercial 7.5 i.p.s. pre-reorded tapes that were real-time transferred were usually very good. But, they were made back in the days when people cared.
• Newly made vinyl records are made for a connoisseur market. The old ones -- when they were the only mass music medium, and therefore had a captive audience -- varied from simply great to so execrable that they would get put away and never played again ... or actually were thrown away. I used to have an Ortofon moving coil cartridge to play the good ones, and a moving magnet Shure to play those that were so over cut that they were almost untrackable. A few actually had hum!

Digital:

• Newly recorded SACDs, DVD-As, BD music disks may be recorded with more TLC than the average recording. This can't be said for all of the ones made from old recordings (c 1960s, 70s), which may be SBTYM. Some are good. The HDTT DVD-A Erick Friedman Plays Violin Showpieces, made from a commercially released reel to reel tape of 1963 made by RCA is sweet. It doesn't represent the only way a violin can sound, but it is one convincing and lovely way. If they released a vinyl Dynagroove version in '63, the DVD-A may actually sound better!

One of the guys at Sheffield once commented that when they simeltaneously made a Direct to Disk and a digital tape recording from the same feed, they sounded close, but the Direct ot Disk sounded more "there." His digital tape was whatever they used in the late '80s. That does fit with my less controlled experience -- often a digital recording, even a new one -- doesn't sound quite "there."

All of my home listening is classical, later orchestral, jazz, and movies. I haven't listened to pop/rock for years. The lack of full dynamic range does happen once in a while, even in the recordings I listen to. My guess at the ratio of good to bad recordings varies with my mood.

[Chris A]

Ironically, when interviews are performed - the vast majority of the consumer market states a preference for better sound quality.

Yes, but then they go buy loudness war mp3 files and place on their iPods and cell phones. When you hook up one of those devices to a real two-channel system, NOT using headphones, that which exits the loudspeakers is usually unspeakably bad, but it sounds okay on earbuds or headphones. It is this that is driving the majority of the music marketplace. The problem is, the same recording/mixing/mastering engineers producing those upstream music tracks that turn into those nasty mp3s are also producing all other forms of pop, rock/metal, and other non-audiophile music, and this customer segment makes up probably 97% of the sales markeplace in terms of unit sales and revenue.

If the recording industry only wants to make money, then what's the argument for this supposed intentional reduction of quality?

I believe the term is "one size fits all" by the record giants. The smaller boutique record companies, such as Chesky Records, occupy such a small segment of the sales marketplace that the record giants simply ignore them, and cherry pick their way through the recording artists that are making much larger sales volumes, i.e., the more popular the artist, the lower the quality of the recordings--almost without exception.

Could it actually be that the reason recordings are intentionally compressed (especially in the pop culture domain) is because the dominant playback environment is going to be inside of a car, or while working out, or some other noisy activity? Music for the masses has become more of a soundtrack to our lives, versus the artistic event that audiophiles enjoy. Why the heck wouldn't the record industry maximize the enjoyment of the 90%'tile use case? And how in the world could that be construed as shady business?

This is where is gets interesting...I made a reference to the movie industry that produces videos for the large screen (think audiophile quality here) and iPhone playback (think mp3s). The movie industry has thus far successfully resisted the temptation to reduce production quality in order to appeal to the now much smaller (relatively speaking) groups that still go to movie theaters, but the big music industry assumes that mp3 quality is good enough for everyone, Loudness War mp3s at that.

I don't believe that this analogy is invalid or obtuse, and I believe that it has something to do with corporate culture and the role of "manufacturing consent" on its respective buying customers. These same music giants could, almost without cost, produce compressed, earbud quality mp3s AND non-compressed audiophile quality files. But, as far as I've seen, this generally isn't the case. This is a one-size-fits-all mentality by the music giants.

I now believe that this is reflective of a corporate culture that really doesn't care (music), vs. another corporate culture that does (the movie industry), and actually addressing the multiplicity of potential customer segment needs. The music industry is on its rear end, while the movie industry continues to thrive, despite wide-scale file sharing online. I wonder if is has something to do with culture?

I find that the people that succeed in each respective corporate culture are promoted to the top of the firms, while those that reject the existing corporate cultures are rooted out of the ranks to end up in other professions, perhaps low-quality video studios, or alternatively in boutique/audiophile music recording companies, and be seen as "renegades" or "failures".

Chris

[Boxx]

(This is found on Dave's forum page.)

Putting all technical arguments aside.....

"If it sounds good, it IS good." Duke Ellington

Whatever format turns you on, go for it....

[Chris A]

Okay, if we're quoting...borrowing SETi's tagline:

First off, I don't even consider myself a member of the general public. I know that my own requirements in a loudspeaker are those I've discussed. Judging from what contact I have with the general public, though, I conclude that 99 percent of the general public doesn't even know what accuracy of reproduction is. My company is for the one percent composed of perfectionists who buy these expensive speakers.

PWK

It's not too much of a stretch to "get" what Mr. Klipsch was saying, is it? []

Chris

[Boxx]

Okay, if we're quoting...borrowing SETi's tagline:

First off, I don't even consider myself a member of the general public. I know that my own requirements in a loudspeaker are those I've discussed. Judging from what contact I have with the general public, though, I conclude that 99 percent of the general public doesn't even know what accuracy of reproduction is. My company is for the one percent composed of perfectionists who buy these expensive speakers.

PWK

It's not too much of a stretch to "get" what Mr. Klipsch was saying, is it?

Chris

He was, without a doubt, a very wise man...

[Chris A]

See article.

pwklivemusic.pdf

[rigma]

See article.

"Each increment of "signal processing" adds its contribution of distortion."

That statement is why I like to keep the signal chain analog and very simple.

rigma

[Chris A]

No arguments here. In fact, I'm currently in favor of keeping the signal in the digital domain all the way from the disk player until it needs to come out of the preamp output terminal (including digital loudspeaker crossover processing) or even the power amp output terminal (i.e., via an integrated amplifier with crossover processing). I think that Art (artto) has a unit that effectively does that and he is singing the praises of that unit, the name of which escapes me presently, but IIRC this is a two-channel-only unit.

It's difficult to do 5.1 or 7.1 in the analog-only domain [:|] - and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to go there if I could. Two-channel has become the sole application domain for analog-only source material (e.g., vinyl), and the new analog recordings are, as I understand it, derived from digital "masters".

Chris

P.S. Hey Marion, what were the last dozen recordings that you've listened to?

[DrWho]

I personally would prefer
those mobile playback devices to have their own configurable compression
algorithms built in, but the cost and complexity of that would never
happen.

iTunes has this function built into the PC or Mac iTunes
app itself, and will convert/compress down when it is downloaded to the
device.

I'm talking about amplitude compression, not data compression...

I
don't think I've stated my view on this plainly, but I'm trying to
suggest that the "volume war" amplitude compression results in higher
perceived audio quality. I know that's not the case for your
preferences, but you also listen in a dedicated space with a controlled
noise floor. The majority of the music listening in this world happens
in high ambient noise environments - arguably not a high-fidelity
situation to begin with, but the amplitude compression (not data) helps
the quieter passages be heard without blowing out your ears. In other
words, it allows for quieter, more comfortable listening levels in
typical environments.

As far as these stories about the evils of
the record labels - the only way you're going to sell a book is to focus
on the interesting worst case scenarios. Based on my experiences at
work, I don't think you would have a hard time finding reputable record
labels that partake in the volume wars. It's also good to remind
ourselves that at the end of the day, we live in a capitalist culture
and music has become more about utility than art. The ones that focus
strictly on art, aren't successful in a monetary way (not to imply there
isn't success there). All that to say, I think it is a popular fad to
villainize the record labels...and I think it is entirely unrelated to
the volume wars.

In other words, I think you will easily find
reputable recording studios that intentionally (amplitude) compress
their music because they and their target market thinks it sounds
better. The fact that you don't like it, is merely a statement of
preference. To claim that something achieving the intended result is
somehow not high-fidelity is where, in my opinion, the audiophile
elitism starts to come into play....and that really turns off the
younger generations. Btw, I'm definitely in the camp that prefers more
dynamics in the music, but that's only one aspect of the artistic realm.

I don't believe that this analogy is invalid or obtuse, and I believe
that it has something to do with corporate culture and the role of
"manufacturing consent" on its respective buying customers. These same
music giants could, almost without cost, produce compressed, earbud
quality mp3s AND non-compressed audiophile quality files. But, as far
as I've seen, this generally isn't the case. This is a
one-size-fits-all mentality by the music giants.

Can you show me any song that is available only on mp3? I have never seen an mp3 album that couldn't also be purchased on CD.

Just
outta curiosity, do you think you could do a better job producing
anything in the top 100? I am fairly certain that the high dynamic
result you would end up with, would result in less sales. In fact, there
is typically a mastering process the converts the high dynamic result
into the compressed low dynamics - it costs a lot of money and time, but
it achieves an aesthetic that more people enjoy. I'm personally in the
camp that prefers higher dynamics, and have done a fair amount of
recording that has maximized that result. However, people around me that
are more like the general population always say something sounds off
until I add the mastering compression...and then all of a sudden it
achieves a certain sound that everyone has come to expect. These are
people hearing both sounds and preferring the volume war sound- and I'm not even good at doing the volume war sound. There is a crazy art to the sound these mastering studios are able to get - I personally don't care for it, but I can appreciate the skill and the need for it.

Btw, one more comment or rather, observation on amplitude compression....

I've
been to quite a few audiophile gatherings listening to music. One thing
that has always caught my attention is this concept of volume creep. So
many times a highly dynamic song will have a quiet section, and the
person manning the volume control will almost always turn up the volume
during the quiet passage if the music doesn't command the silence. Heck,
I've seen people turn up the volume during intentional rests in
classical pieces. Why are they doing this? And how is this any different
than intentional amplitude compression? [] Btw, I'm pretty sure
nearly everyone here (including myself) has done this at some point.
Being a sound engineer, I think I'm a bit more aware of it because half
the time I'm looking to pull stuff back so that there is room in the
system and people's ears for the loud parts to sound really loud. But
that's a live sound environment where people want the dynamics. Anyways, my point is that even the majority of "audiophiles" prefer a 'loud' sound - especially Klipsch fans since the speakers can go way louder.

I
would still argue the majority case wants less dynamics. I know I
personally can't listen to a lot of lossless recordings on my phone at
work because the quiet passages are too quiet. This is why I would love
there to be an amplitude compressor with ballistics defined by the
source (you can't get away with a compressor that works for all types of
music).

All that to say, I don't buy the argument that "volume wars" is entirely a bad thing. Bad for you and me? In many ways yes, but sometimes I'm thankful for it. Quite honestly, I don't enjoy most of the music that benefits from a "realistic live sound" - I can definitely appreciate it, but if I want to hear that live sound, then I'll go to a live acoustic concert - and I get to do tons of that. For me, the recorded media becomes a world where we get to hear things that would otherwise never exist. For some reason, that's incredibly applauded in the painting world - but the "audiophile" crowd screams lack of fidelity when that happens...

[garyrc]

they go buy loudness war mp3 files and place on their iPods and cell phones. When you hook up one of those devices to a real two-channel system, NOT using headphones, that which exits the loudspeakers is usually unspeakably bad, but it sounds okay on earbuds or headphones

[Y] [Y] [Y]

I
know a brick and mortar dealer who does just that. He hooks up a
customer's mini player to a "real" sound system, and the customer is
usually shocked at how bad the MP3 sounds, especially compared to the
same recording on CD through the same (non-headphone) system.

As
to the movie industry, there are still several individuals in high
positions in those companies who like movies, are moved by them, and
care about quality. I doubt that there are many high executives in the
truly big recording companies who like music. Really. The days of the likes of Goddard Lieberson are over, apparently. A company president or CEO (like GL) can insist on good recordings.

[DrWho]

That statement is why I like to keep the signal chain analog and very simple.

What's simple about using a voltage to guide cutting a groove to wiggle a needle to wiggle a coil that requires a dramatic EQ curve to compensate for?

That, to me, sounds like a very complicated process.

If we're going to talk about the echelon of analog, then I think we need to be talking about reel to reel...

[DrWho]

On that note, I also don't think we have an ideal digital solution for the home audio domain.

Do we have anyone keeping the signal digital all the way to the amplifiers without having to play gain structure games?