It doesn't matter to me either - if you prefer it, good for you. But in absolute, measurable terms, a modern digital system is way superior to analog tape. And yes, I have worked with both.
To quote t Richard Feynman: "Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"
If you listen to the best era's of music Pre 1983 it was all done on analog tape. That is the best format to hear it followed by well sorted vinyl. The sound is degraded once you convert from a/d. No getting around it no matter how good your digital rig is. Now if you listen to music originally recorded/mastered digital, you may be on to something. Sadly, I find most music from that era going forward rather weak musically.
It doesn't matter to me either - if you prefer it, good for you. But in absolute, measurable terms, a modern digital system is way superior to analog tape. And yes, I have worked with both.
To quote t Richard Feynman: "Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"
Superior in what way? Using analog measurements to assess digital performance just like engineers did fifty years ago to pronounce solid-state perfect? There's nothing wrong with digital? It's everything else. The mikes, the studio, the this, the that. I've heard that stuff for 30 years and nothing has changed. If digital is all it's cracked up to be, how come it's a poor facsimile of real music?
Most of Linn's download catalog is 24/88.2 or higher PCM (presumably converted from DSD) and recently some DSD files as well. A little bit of it is 24/44.1. I suspect that much of the 24/44.1 was originally recorded at higher resolution but mastered to 24/44.1 (like the Beatles USB Apple). There's some outstanding stuff there (musically as well as sonically), although some of the best is just sold through the Linn store but from other labels (like Channel Classics).
... Now if you listen to music originally recorded/mastered digital, you may be on to something. Sadly, I find most music from that era going forward rather weak musically.
I can only hope this statement doesn't mean that you think existing analog recordings are a "good" facsimile of real music? As currently available, I think it's safe to say that both analog and digital recordings are "poor" facsimiles of real music, each with their own set of virtues and faults.
Absolutely! For me, I can't listen long term (particularly with classical music), to the sound of digital recordings. It's what they omit and commit that bothers me. That of course may vary somewhat depending upon whether the original recording was originally analog or digital sourced. As they say, YMMV.
But the way Julf is framing his argument is that digital is the cat's meow. And when that argument fails, blame it on everything else but the digital process.
I have tons of cd's both studio and live. I haven't heard a studio cd in over 4 years since regaining my senses and abandoning digital as my primary listening media.
I have tons of cd's both studio and live. I haven't heard a studio cd in over 4 years since regaining my senses and abandoning digital as my primary listening media.
I have tons of cd's both studio and live. I haven't heard a studio cd in over 4 years since regaining my senses and abandoning digital as my primary listening media.
Most of Linn's download catalog is 24/88.2 or higher PCM (presumably converted from DSD) and recently some DSD files as well.A little bit of it is 24/44.1. I suspect that much of the 24/44.1 was originally recorded at higher resolution but mastered to 24/44.1 (like the Beatles USB Apple). There's some outstanding stuff there (musically as well as sonically), although some of the best is just sold through the Linn store but from other labels (like Channel Classics).
dismissal ? There are plenty exceptions in the 80's and 90's...many still choosing to tape analog. I can't think of any mainstream inspiring music happening in this millennia (the 2000's and beyond).
There is no need, money better spent in other area's perhaps. There is no digital frontend on this planet that competes with my analog front end period, given music playback from analog sourced originals.
I don't have to. The fact remains that going a/d is flawed. No digital frontend can re-create the soundstage, spatial cues, timbre and dynamics of music originally mastered in analog. It's an approximation, good as it can be. I'll take the non format converted version.
There is no need, money better spent in other area's perhaps. There is no digital frontend on this planet that competes with my analog front end period, given music playback from analog sourced originals.
Christian, I'm sure that many people here are very happy for you, including me.
This thread's (right here) main origin and goal is to explore the digital world; more explicitly the 24/44.1 hi-rez music files (downloads) in order to evaluate if it makes sense that they are advertised as "Studio Masters".
And Mr. Bruce Brown, the pro-audiophile audio expert and recording engineer is our main man, as it is in his section of the forums.
And I believe that our OP (Lindeman) was addressing him in particular, on this digital audio subject.
I don't have to. The fact remains that going a/d is flawed. No digital frontend can re-create the soundstage, spatial cues, timbre and dynamics of music originally mastered in analog. It's an approximation, good as it can be. I'll take the non format converted version.
Please; "in your opinion". If you're talking about LP as your analog example, you are talking about an additional transducer or two (both cutting needle/lathe as well as playback stylus/cartridge, with all that implies) as your front end. In practice it possibly works better than A>D>A conversion, but there is no inherent virtue in a transducer as compared to a computer process (IMO).
Please; "in your opinion". If you're talking about LP as your analog example, you are talking about an additional transducer or two (both cutting needle/lathe as well as playback stylus/cartridge, with all that implies) as your front end. In practice it possibly works better than A>D>A conversion, but there is no inherent virtue in a transducer as compared to a computer process (IMO).
you should include close to SOTA tape playback too. Yes, only in my opinion. I use to drink the digital only kool-aid from '1985-2009'. Spec wise on paper, digital seemed to have it all. Since then when I hear analog playback, the illusion is live, where as in digital it sounds recorded especially thanks to compression, normalization and whatever they do to make them sound inferior to their analog counterparts.
But the way Julf is framing his argument is that digital is the cat's meow. And when that argument fails, blame it on everything else but the digital process.
Could you please point out where I am blaming something (not sure what) on "everything else but the digital process"?
You seem to be making an argument that has absolutely nothing to do with what I have written, apart from a general "analog is better than digital (because I say so)" position.
Julf-I'm trying to understand if your love of all things digital came after you had experience with tape and decided digital was the superior format or if you are simply in love with measurements and specifications.
I had quite a bit of experience with analog tape, and then went through the troubled era of the less-than-perfect digital systems in the 80's. Modern digital systems are, in my opinion, far superior to either analog tape or the early digital systems.
I do love measurements and specifications as tools to objectively determine differences in a factual, repeatable and verifiable way. Just because a system measures better than another system doesn't mean that systems sounds subjectively better, but the measurements still give a much more reliable indication than the subjective impressions of some audiophile journalist or "person of authority".
