Digital glare I suppose is inherent in the technology when a bad recording accentuates this. I have listened to digital for hours with no ear bleeding glare but with all well recorded material.
Digital glare I suppose is inherent in the technology when a bad recording accentuates this. I have listened to digital for hours with no ear bleeding glare but with all well recorded material.
I don't think many of the complaints of early digital are applicable now. It was digital that improved.
It seems much more likely that the known quiet, extension and linearity of digital reveals flaws in the recording than the glare is inherent in the tech and only bad recordings reveal it.
Tim
We have come a long way from the days when my opinion of digital was just my imagination fueled by my attachment to vinyl. Digital has gone through several incarnations and continues to progress. Never admitting along the way there was anything wrong.
Oh, no. Digital has improved, so of course there was something to improve. I don't think anyone is denying that. What we are supposing is that it has been better than analog, by all objective metrics, for a long, long, time. What you like, of course is another matter.
Tim
We have come a long way from the days when my opinion of digital was just my imagination fueled by my attachment to vinyl. Digital has gone through several incarnations and continues to progress. Never admitting along the way there was anything wrong.
Oh, no. Digital has improved, so of course there was something to improve. I don't think anyone is denying that. What we are supposing is that it has been better than analog, by all objective metrics, for a long, long, time. What you like, of course is another matter.
Tim
See my post:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...win-s-High-End&p=380299&viewfull=1#post380299
(See also my follow-up post there on that.)
I now like top-level digital and top-level analog equallly. Digital measures better by some traditional objective metrics, but how relevant this is for the final audible result is of course a matter of debate that we have had for decades now.
I'm really don't see any point in the debate, but it rages on. Digital measures better. There is no legitimate debate about that. Analog and digital sound different. There's no debate about that either.
I agree ,my vinyl system is as much like digital as I can make it, direct drive turntable, cartridge with a ( relatively ) flat FR ,solid state phono stage with accurate RIAA, vinyl and digital can sound remarkably similar .No, top-level digital and analog do not sound that different. Please read the post that I linked to, as well as my follow-up post in that thread, about the best examples in both media sounding more like live music and about colorations.
No, top-level digital and analog do not sound that different. Please read the post that I linked to, as well as my follow-up post in that thread, about the best examples in both media sounding more like live music and about colorations.
I read it. Whenever anyone begins talking about the impossible reference point of live music, I conclude that they are really talking about preference, probably heavily colored by bias and perception. They're certainly not talking about a system's, or an individual component's ability to reproduce the recording.
Tim
I disagree, even though I appreciate the point that you have repeatedly made about mikes just not 'hearing' the way we do, leading to necessary compromises on mike positioning.
However, in my follow-up post I specifically addressed the issue of coloration and my conclusions about the DACs performance as apparently being true to the recording:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...win-s-High-End&p=380325&viewfull=1#post380325
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |