Jump to content

Big 10 Lies of Audio that refuse to die


ClaudeJ1

Recommended Posts

This has been a really interesting discussion. Most interesting is that people will argue about anything!!!! My take is that art and perceptions are different for everyone. Like Claude, I have been a professional photographer for many years. I shot film for years - had my own darkroom and processed and printed thousands of images. Once digital came in I switched to DSLRs and never looked back. My clients required images in the digital domain. I was an event photographer and shot many reveals of latest products at major trade shows in the USA. I was hired by Sony and the major movie studios to shoot a new technology called Blu-ray DVD. My images from that shoot were used the very day of the reveal and by the next day were being shared all over the world. The reveal was shot in a very darkened room while screens showed the DVD tech B-Roll footage. Were these images as high quality as something I could have captured with more light and an 8x10 film view camera? Of course the answer is no but for Sonys purposes they were more than high quality enough. 

 

I love the look of analog - even crappy Polaroid - yes low res and noisy but there is a feel that is warm without the micro detail. Audio is similar in that it can be pleasing and sound great to me while others would feel that clinical detail is all that sounds good to them. The coolest thing is that we have the choice to view or listen to whatever we like.I still have my film cameras and lots of high end digital camera gear and I have vinyl, CDs and streaming. I prefer the sound of my Tube amp over my replaced hybrid solid state Mcintosh amp but not because I think tubes are BETTER. I just prefer the sound distortion and all.Same goes with vinyl. I like the physical tactile feel of the record playing process. Bottom line is I like music no matter what its source.

 

BTW - I am also not a pixel peeper nor do I follow all the rules of color theory or a lot of compositional rules. -- Ha ha - sue me -- I like what I like and make no apologies about that and nobody else should feel intimidated because they like analog or digital better than the other. or like me - like both

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2020 at 12:17 PM, ILI_MeloManiac said:

 

Analog images of public and historical value are digitized in order to allow public access and selling. However, the analog original will be stored in saltmines deep underground under stable conditions for generations to come... 

Would you scan your Picasso/Van Gogh and then destroy the original? 

Of course not. I would sell the original to a collector. Scanning valuable paintings has allowed digital reproductions, using Pigment Inkjet, to create copies that are hard to tell from the original. I interviewed John Wolf at the Boston Museum of Modern Art about this 16 years ago. Inkjet Tech. has been great since 2005 for Pigment Reproductions on Fine Art papers that last 200-500 years! This way people can enjoy a terrific reproduction, while the original painting is preserved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Fido said:

BTW - I am also not a pixel peeper nor do I follow all the rules of color theory or a lot of compositional rules. -- Ha ha - sue me -- I like what I like and make no apologies about that and nobody else should feel intimidated because they like analog or digital better than the other. or like me - like both

I agree with you on all counts here. I own and like both Analog and Digital, being fully aware of the limitations. It's very rare to find things that were made 50 years ago that are better than what can be made today, but there are some exceptions. Kind of Blue, by Miles Davis, 1959, is the best selling Jazz Recording of all time for a reason, but the digital version fixes a wow and flutter issue from the original master, so it's still and improvement................as an example................much like replacing capacitors in my Marantz 8B improved it over the original factory unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another point of looking at it: what about the 'will/wish/intention' of the original artist? Example: many 'serious' photographers prefer their images to be exhibited in print (on photographic paper), not on flatscreen TVs/tablets.The great photographer Robert Frank, author of The Americans, an icon in photography, was using an Instax Wide 210 camera. That was in 2014, btw. It is kind of funny, because for some reason he misses the shot. Anyway, I saw other footage of him using Instax and he was raving about it. (That video is offline now, don't know why.) Who would dare call that bullsh$t? Would you step up to him and tell him to go digital?

 

 

Now turn to music. There are many great recordings of the past, approved by the artists. They approved the format of their time, be it tape, vinyl, or wax cillinder. Isn't it prepostorous to claim one knows what the original artist, dead by now, would prefer? People who express these claims, do so mostly second hand (I know a person who worked together with *artist X* and he says *artist X* would choose digital...), isn't that like saying, if Mozart were living now, he would be a DJ. Yeah right.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

So yes, the beauty is the "BITS" can be moved forward to the latest technology of the day, without degradation.

 

Bits.... 0 and I you mean, and you trust them to be without degradation, to be unambiguous, reliable. Copy after copy after copy, they will be identical, centainly with that clever 'error correction', right?

 

Now then, take a look at these digital scans/images of Monet's  Impression, Soleil Levant and tell me which one is closest to the original? If you don't have access to the analog original, there is no way of telling!

Now, with digitial music, you have the exact same problem. You have ADC and DAC, and during those two conversions, you have the exact same issues as in the paintings below. Unless you have access to the analog (or, yes: digital) original, there is no way of telling if the music you hear is close to the original...

image.thumb.png.9b0690935b8489ab96b916057b2580f0.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2020 at 8:51 AM, DizRotus said:

Claude, there’s no point arguing with those who prefer the surface noise generated by dragging a semiprecious stone over dusty and bumpy plastic that is incapable of reproducing the lowest notes without the stylus jumping out of the groove.  Then send the signal generated by the cartridge through the RIAA equalization circuit before  extolling its superiority over using 1s and 0s to reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, whether recorded digitally or in analog.

 

To tell someone they are wrong to prefer something in audio is akin to telling someone their spouse, or romantic partner, is flawed and should not be their preferred mate.

 

You and I agree that high quality class D chip amps best meet our needs.  We have both experienced various topologies, tube and solid state, some better than others, before settling on digital class D amps.

 

IMHO, music recorded on vinyl can sound very pleasing despite the limitations described above, not because of them.  That said, I won’t tell someone their partner is unattractive, or that they’re wrong to prefer vinyl or tubes.  Nevertheless, if someone were to tell me they preferred wax cylinders to vinyl, that would be too much.

 

@ClaudeJ1

 

 

Good unbiased reporting. Well done Diz

I personally prefer vinyl for the inconvenience. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2020 at 2:14 PM, ILI_MeloManiac said:

Who would dare call that bullsh$t? Would you step up to him and tell him to go digital?

No, but I would tell Sally Mann that her newer work sucks and tell her why. I know what a great picture should look like and I can spot Bullshit pictures from a mile away, just like several Art School grads that used to work for me, taking their bullshit pictures and calling them "Art," like a photo of a TV dinner on the floor claiming they were "from their soul." Yeah, right. We will let your "soul" write your pay check then.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MookieStl said:

Good unbiased reporting. Well done Diz

I personally prefer vinyl for the inconvenience. 

I still have over 1,000 LP's but I admit to not playing them very much since I have been a CD fan since the beginning, before anyone else. Now that I have time, those WILL be digitized and placed on their own SS Drive and sold off to collectors or anyone else willing to buy them at a reasonable price (cheap). Some of my more precious recordings have never been available on CD, so I'm not the only one who feels this must be done for future convenience and preservation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2020 at 3:22 PM, ILI_MeloManiac said:

Now then, take a look at these digital scans/images of Monet's  Impression, Soleil Levant and tell me which one is closest to the original? If you don't have access to the analog original, there is no way of telling!

A friend of mine, who is pioneer of restoration technology for paintings, uses technology to reveal details beneath what is visible to the eye by using Narrow band LED's and doing multiple exposures to cover from UV to Infra Red bandwidth. 

 

In terms of reproduction, when using a light source like a Sola, with double polarization and an ICC profiled workflow for High Resolution Digital Cameras AND Printers, you can end up with a Reproduction that is indistinguishable (including texture of the brushstrokes) under identical lighting. John Wolfe from the BMofArt was doing this 15 years ago, with a Studio Print RIP and meticulous technique with a step and repeat Sinar Back and a 60mm Schneider Apo Componon Lens that got results that were sharper than 8x10 films of the past. Your examples are good for showing how bad things can be, but the people who do it for a living know better and can create some incredible COLOR FIDELITY to match the original and sell them at affordable prices for people to enjoy. But the DISPLAY lighting must be specified and the same, because of Metamerism Issues, which is beyond the scope of this text.

 

BTW, the hardest color to reproduce is Cobalt Blue........FYI, as used by Renoir, Monet, and in later years, VanGogh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

sold off to collectors

Just box 'em up and lemme know.  Prolly more than fity dolla to buy though right?  I got dibs!  That's EXACTLY why I didn't go downstairs that day!  I''d have been sending you $$$.  That back massage was unreal though!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dave1290 said:

Just box 'em up and lemme know.  Prolly more than fity dolla to buy though right?  I got dibs!  That's EXACTLY why I didn't go downstairs that day!  I''d have been sending you $$$.  That back massage was unreal though!  :)

Well, you're the one who asked to turn up the volume until almost the "toilet paper required" level, LOL. The sub can handle a kilowatt, but I only used about 180 or so. It's more of full body shake with more power!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

Well, you're the one who asked to turn up the volume until almost the "toilet paper required" level, LOL. The sub can handle a kilowatt, but I only used about 180 or so. It's more of full body shake with more power!

Yea, I guess I did but I just saved some valuable time.   lol  It was gonna go there anyway but ya did "show me the money," brother!  Then I go to the front porch overloaded almost in the death quiver!  So ya followed me out to kick me a bit more.  Gonna start calling you Maytag ya agitator!  hahaha  Definitely some good vibrations though!   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I believe 1,3,6,7,8,9 are lies (that is I agree with the author of the article.) This based on 43 years of engineering experience and several years before that of both college and amateur screwing around with electronics. I will admit to never doing any blind tests. I believe that tubes  make a difference but I am not prepared to say that they are better. I base that on having listened to many tube and transistor amplifiers and radios. I do not claim that some theoretically perfect tube amp and an equally theoretically perfect transistor amp might not sound the same. But as used in circuits I am certain there is a difference. Again, I have done no testing and I am not claiming tubes are better, simply different. 

 

Evaluating number 5 (feedback is "bad") would require several expert teams building their best possible amps, some with feedback and some without. Then a huge test with lots of listeners. To prove feedback is "bad" a vast majority of the listeners would have to agree. But then with next year's models who knows? Design expertise might evolve to the point that feedback amps become better. Bait casting reels ruled fishing until spincasting reels took over, but then plain casting reels came back. Technology sometimes evolves such that old school becomes new school again. So I am skeptical that the mere presence of feedback proves anything. I am actually skeptical of any technology arguments (tubes are bad/good, horns are bad/good, ports are bad/good, digital is bad/good). Some eccentric designer is going to prove a technological argument wrong, nearly every time. His (or her) circuit will do it "wrong" but sound good.

 

I believe perfect digital circuits all sound the same, and I think digital can get a lot closer to perfection than analog, but in the end we all listen to analog signals. I think the conversion from digital to analog and the inevitable analog circuits downstream of the digital front end were given short shrift in the early days of digital and are still poorly done in cheap equipment today. So a lot of digital stuff does sound worse. 

 

I will go farther and say that great analog designs with very low THD may still sound different, despite the claims that "THD is so low as to be inaudible." I say that based on years of building acoustic instruments. When I listen to an acoustic instrument THD is zero. But the way you strike or strum it and the way you hold it make noticeable changes to the sound. Temperature and humidity change the sound. Two "identical" instruments sound different. If wood and flesh and air can do this I believe transistors and capacitors can also affect sound in ways that THD does not capture. 

 

About those golden ears. I do not have 'em. I like the sounds of some stereos better than others. I like the Klipsch speakers that I own (H1's and R-51PM's.) I don't think I hear better than any of you. I noticed (twice) when a cheap sound card was replaced in a computer, but I never did blind tests. I don't have so much invested in my system that I worry about my ego demanding that I hear a difference. One time I installed a $40 sound card for reasons other than sound quality, it replaced the "free" onboard sound card that probably cost $2. I was pleasantly surprised to notice the improvement. The second time I added a $99 Schiit DAC to a different computer, again replacing the low-cost built in sound card, again noticing an improvement. I didn't say that " the soundstage opened up" or "a veil was lifted." The music just sounded better. No golden ears here. My wife and daughters all noticed the new silver box next to the computer (the Schiit DAC) and asked what it was. I said, "It replaced the built in sound card", I did not predict any improvement or coach them. They all three (independently) basically said, "The music sounds better." One actually said, "Wow." They noticed the improvement. So I will recommend bypassing the onboard sound card on a computer if you want to use it for music.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if I'm going to break it down scientifically, here's what I conclude ... I like what I like -- you're all free to do the same.The sound that is going into my ears is what I'm concerned with. With many topics, we often come from different starting points and that often creates difference of opinions. i.e. we should all be at this point at this time ... okay, if we all started in the same place ... maybe. 

The bigger question is why can't I eat these potato chips without getting crumbs all over me?  Any devices that you have should indicate that I'm just a pig when I'm eating. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, the fact that these debates keep coming up should force those who believe the "lies" listed by Aczel to confront this inescapable truth: 

 

If there ARE audible differences b/w amplifiers, cables, DAC's, etc..., those differences are very very small.  Otherwise, why is their very existence even debated?

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again... At least 95% (probably more like 99%) of how a system sounds is a function of speakers and room acoustics. 

 

Unfortunately, there's an entire industry of gear manufacturers and retailers, etc who are gaslighting us into believing differently.  And I very much believe PWK would wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with ODS123

 

Your Speakers and Your Room are 95-99% of what you hear.

 

Second a human's "perceptions" ( which does not require the truth, facts, good or bad ) dictate more human actions than anything else. So if I perceive a difference then their is a difference for ME, the rest of you not so sure. 

 

Another factor, once you have perceived to have heard a good system, you want your system to be as good if not better, therefore the constant look for some factor to make a difference to your system. 

 

I have just went from my Mission Argonauts with a Velodyne 15 inch sub, which I have enjoyed for 30 plus years, to a pair of 1977 La Scala's and Wow I found something better. 

 

What is the biggest difference, I went from listening to specific songs on an album to enjoying the whole albums with my wife by my side ,even the "B" songs.

 

To all enjoy the music, let your system be in the background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...