Digital or analog? Breuninger says... and asks what says you?

[MylesBAstor]

No Tim, i for one am not shocked one bit, because i agree 100%. noise free - hassle free - ease free - what more to ask for.

Or as HP said, "The absence of noise is not the presence of music."

 

[MrAcoustat]

Or as HP said, "The absence of noise is not the presence of music."

Yes you may be right, but if there is noise it is hard for ME to concentrate on the music, all i do is wait for the NEXT snack - crackle - and pop - wich you don't get with Cd,s.

 

[treitz3]

That can all be reduced by impeccable maintenance of an LP and a good LP cleaning machine/method [such as ultrasonic or steam cleaning/antistatic devices along with keeping the needle clean]. By as much as 90%. In most cases IME, once the music starts [unless it is an extremely soft passage], you do not hear any of the snap, crackle or pops on a well maintained LP.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Or as HP said, "The absence of noise is not the presence of music.

Ah...here's where it all goes to hell in a hand basket. Completely illogical. Utterly irrelevant. Representative of a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of "music" and its reproduction, distilled into a transparent shot across the bow of all who fail to see the superiority of the writer's preferences. And, with all of that, inarguable. The absence of noise does not equal the presence of music. The presence of music does. The absence of noise just gets the noise out of the way.

Tim

 

[MrAcoustat]

That can all be reduced by impeccable maintenance of an LP and a good LP cleaning machine/method [such as ultrasonic or steam cleaning/antistatic devices along with keeping the needle clean]. By as much as 90%. In most cases IME, once the music starts [unless it is an extremely soft passage], you do not hear any of the snap, crackle or pops on a well maintained LP.

I'm sorry to disagree but no matter how good your cleaning machine you will NEVER get rid of ALL the surface noise and that is NORMAL where there is FRICTION there will be noise and i did mention for ME because 90% of my music is like you said so well contains lot's of extremely soft passages but if you don't mind that well it's good for you but for ME that annoying surface noise is just not acceptable what i don't understand from PRO ANALOG audiophiles is that it's ok for them but it's not ok for PRO DIGITAL audiophiles same thing with the computer music it's not because I don't like it that others should not let's ALL enjoy equaly as long as it's music.

 

[Steve Williams]

I am hoping that as Peter wrote in his OP to this thread......what say you? Be nice ,...... that we keep this thread civil and on topic

 

[MrAcoustat]

I am hoping that as Peter wrote in his OP to this thread......what say you? Be nice ,...... that we keep this thread civil and on topic

Yes Steve you're right as long as it stay's civilise but let's not forget BOTH pro analogs & pro digitals have the right to give their opinion.

 

[treitz3]

That's OK, MrAcoustat. We can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

Just enjoy the music, no matter what. That's what should make you happy in this hobby.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Ah...here's where it all goes to hell in a hand basket. Completely illogical. Utterly irrelevant. Representative of a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of "music" and its reproduction, distilled into a transparent shot across the bow of all who fail to see the superiority of the writer's preferences. And, with all of that, inarguable. The absence of noise does not equal the presence of music. The presence of music does. The absence of noise just gets the noise out of the way.

Tim

Keep me on ignore.

 

[Andre Marc]

Hi Peter:

Let me say that I prefer analog as a RECORDING medium, but as a delivery and playback medium,
digital all the way.

The absurd amount of expense and maintenance required for vinyl playback is a total deal killer.

The cost of properly producing a record is ridiculous the thought of paying $50 for a new pressing of a Doors album is absurd, since it starts to deteriorate from the very first play.

I have no patience for the "rituals" surrounding LP playback, nor the surface noise, nor the endless variables in the playback chain.

FYI, I also have Revox RTR.

Myles asked a new member what party he belongs to... are you a D or an A? Again, (moderators) if this has been beat to death please pull the thread ASAP.

I am of both and of both equally. I love the organic nature of analog but I also love the exactitude of digital (pitch, bass, and quietness- PBQ). I have four turntables and one RtoR in the main studio. I own 8 RtoR decks, have a full BC collection and about 500 additional titles (several of my own recordings). Too many tables to list have come/gone/stay to mention. After all of this I still really enjoy digital. I can't escape my love of the PBQ of digital, plus the convenience factor of mass storage and instant click selection and comparisons. I've spent many a night exploring the differences in the readings of one conductor to another in quick click sessions.

Folks seem to get very personal about their beliefs here... what say you? Be nice

 

[mep]

Hi Peter:

The cost of properly producing a record is ridiculous the thought of paying $50 for a new pressing of a Doors album is absurd, since it starts to deteriorate from the very first play.

I have to agree. I would rather pay $25.00 for a 24/192 recording of Tea for the Tillerman that stinks the first time you play it and will stink equally after you have played it a 1000 times.

 

[Andre Marc]

Have you actually heard that download or are you just making an uninformed statement ? I own it and it is remarkably analog sounding.

I have to agree. I would rather pay $25.00 for a 24/192 recording of Tea for the Tillerman that stinks the first time you play it and will stink equally after you have played it a 1000 times.

 

[flez007]

Digital, so long as it sounds like analog..

 

[Keith_W]

My music is available on digital, but not on analog. Therefore I am digital. I did not make the choice, necessity made the choice for me.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi Peter:

Let me say that I prefer analog as a RECORDING medium, but as a delivery and playback medium,
digital all the way.

The absurd amount of expense and maintenance required for vinyl playback is a total deal killer.

The cost of properly producing a record is ridiculous the thought of paying $50 for a new pressing of a Doors album is absurd, since it starts to deteriorate from the very first play.

I have no patience for the "rituals" surrounding LP playback, nor the surface noise, nor the endless variables in the playback chain.

FYI, I also have Revox RTR.

Andre,

making the commitment to the whole vinyl thing is a big deal, and i respect your various rationalizations as to why it's not for you. if a friend asked me whether it's worth it compared to digital....we would end up having a long conversation with me asking many questions before i would answer him/her.

all that said; your point about.....

it starts to deteriorate from the very first play.

......is simply wrong. sure, in a theoretical sense Lp surfaces deterioriate. but in practice this turns out to not be an issue. i have many Lps where i've played them literally thousands of times......without a difference. it does require respect for keeping things clean and such.....having good equipment properly set-up....and all that. might hundreds or thousands of plays add a 'tick' or two? maybe. but if a tick or two screwed your head up, then vinyl is not for you anyway.

i don't have one Lp which i've switched out of my use due to wear. i've bought back up copies of many Lps mostly in case one gets scratched, or anticipating increased value, not wear. and i've yet to break the seal on any of them. playing an Lp on a damaged or mis-aligned cartridge can hurt them and i do 'occasionally' find used Lps like that.

in fact, compared to the supposed 'perfect sound forever' CD's, Lps are indestructable. i'll agree that digital files have advantages in storage and should not be vulnerable to the ravenges of time, but like MEP infers, so what?

ease of use is one big reason i listen to digital, along with access to music i don't have on analog. and those are very important issues. and i agree digital can sound very very good.

 

[mep]

Have you actually heard that download or are you just making an uninformed statement ? I own it and it is remarkably analog sounding.

I own it and it's dreadful and it sounds nothing like the analog version. It was mastered at a much lower level than 'normal' Hi-Rez downloads that I have purchased and all of the life of the real recording has beern sucked out of it. I would bet anything that the Hi-Rez 24/192 recording was not sourced from the original master tape.

 

[microstrip]

I have to agree. I would rather pay $25.00 for a 24/192 recording of Tea for the Tillerman that stinks the first time you play it and will stink equally after you have played it a 1000 times.

Mep,

My very old copy of Tea for Tillerman LP has played some tens of times and is still perfect. Do you have access to any decent digital version of it? In this particular recording even my MFSL CD sounds inferior to the LP.

 

[mep]

Mep,

My very old copy of Tea for Tillerman LP has played some tens of times and is still perfect. Do you have access to any decent digital version of it? In this particular recording even my MFSL CD sounds inferior to the LP.

Micro-I don't know if you posted this before you read my response to Andre that I own the 24/192 version of Tea for the Tillerman. I would dare say that any LP version of Tea for the Tillerman would blow away the 24/192 version.

 

[microstrip]

When evaluating components I listen mostly to digital. But for music listening, if the LP version is available I choose it. However, as most of the music I like is only available in CD form I listen more to digital than analog.

I find difficult to assemble a system that is optimized for both media.

 

[MrAcoustat]

Andre,

making the commitment to the whole vinyl thing is a big deal, and i respect your various rationalizations as to why it's not for you. if a friend asked me whether it's worth it compared to digital....we would end up having a long conversation with me asking many questions before i would answer him/her.

all that said; your point about.....


......is simply wrong. sure, in a theoretical sense Lp surfaces deterioriate. but in practice this turns out to not be an issue. i have many Lps where i've played them literally thousands of times......without a difference. it does require respect for keeping things clean and such.....having good equipment properly set-up....and all that. might hundreds or thousands of plays add a 'tick' or two? maybe. but if a tick or two screwed your head up, then vinyl is not for you anyway.

i don't have one Lp which i've switched out of my use due to wear. i've bought back up copies of many Lps mostly in case one gets scratched, or anticipating increased value, not wear. and i've yet to break the seal on any of them. playing an Lp on a damaged or mis-aligned cartridge can hurt them and i do 'occasionally' find used Lps like that.

in fact, compared to the supposed 'perfect sound forever' CD's, Lps are indestructable. i'll agree that digital files have advantages in storage and should not be vulnerable to the ravenges of time, but like MEP infers, so what?

ease of use is one big reason i listen to digital, along with access to music i don't have on analog. and those are very important issues. and i agree digital can sound very very good.

+1 100% true Quote: Mike Lavigne !!! but if a tick or two screwed your head up, then vinyl is not for you anyway, this is one of the reason's that i'm 100% PRO-CD,s.To each is own.