Paul McGowan Prefers Digital

[spiritofmusic]

This thread:

View attachment 49263

Keith, that's Ron's reaction to considering the future of audio when he first heard a cd in 1983 LOL.

 

[RogerD]

There has been a chemical process to restore tapes for 12 years and absolutely no interest by the record company conglomerates. Why because of digital....archiving. I find it interesting that so many are saying that digital keeps improving in their systems and this will continue.

 

[Ron Resnick]

IMHO if one reads just the opening post with a precise, logical, analytical mind he will be astonished with it. It looks like a war declaration ... It is why I am focusing on the message, not the messengers.

Can I ask why you suppressed the words "intentionally or not " from my original words in the quote? It was a key part of the sentence.

Dear Francisco,

Of course!

I deleted those (motivational) words — visibly with ellipsis — to simplify my point that regardless of your belief about my motivation (in other words, whether it was intentional or not does not matter to the point I am making in my recent reply to your post) I cannot see how you can reasonably construe my opening post as a broadside, generalized attack on digital reproduction.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So, if you love Jennifer Warnes and maybe at least a couple of dozen digitally mastered albums, why dont we ever hear of your search for an adequate to good digital source to make the most of them?

By your own admission you have a more limited number of fave analog recordings than anyone else on this forum, and yet prepared to spend $150k plus on SOTA tt and R2R to make the most of them.

By definition you should be spending something significant to enjoy those digital recordings you love.

Talk to JackD201 and Albert Von Schwiekert. They're both huge fans of Eera digital. You can have a totally engrossing one box cdp for $13k, their top transport/dac combo for c$20k, which you could then add a decent server and still have change from a total spend of $20-30k.

Ron, I'm a vinylphile first and foremost. For me to find a digital source like Eera that is as seamless in tandem with a tt, displaying so many of the best traits of analog, well this is such a bonus for my listening preferences, valueing analog so highly. Yet having a digital source I can't wait to play every day.

Talk to Jack and Albert.

Marc, Please see Peter’s posts #338 and #345, above.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So, if you love Jennifer Warnes and maybe at least a couple of dozen digitally mastered albums, why dont we ever hear of your search for an adequate to good digital source to make the most of them?

By your own admission you have a more limited number of fave analog recordings than anyone else on this forum, and yet prepared to spend $150k plus on SOTA tt and R2R to make the most of them.

By definition you should be spending something significant to enjoy those digital recordings you love.

. . .

Thank you, Marc, for these relevant and thoughtful posts. (I am not snooty-snogging, you. I am being am serious.). Here you are reflecting accurately what I have posted.

If I loved “at least a couple of dozen digitally mastered albums” I actually would do exactly what you are suggesting. But the number of titles is nowhere near high enough to justify the effort and expenditure to a third high-quality source.

Rather than “at least a couple of dozen digitally mastered albums” it literally is two (2) titles: Famous Blue Raincoat and Surfacing.

I’m sure I also have a few 1980s rock and pop albums which were digitally recorded, but for me the (multi-track) recording quality of those albums is not high enough to justify the expense of high-quality digital. In other words replaying those relatively poorly recorded rock and pop titles on a digital system rather than on an analog system doesn’t improve the sound enough to compel me to acquire a whole digital system just for them.

 

[spiritofmusic]

So, you're procuring a $500k system incl AS, top arms and carts, Pendragon 4 towers, and room treatments?

But you won't spend $15k on a top class cdp?

That strikes me as illogical.

As you said, digitally mastered albums are best on cd. And you surely have enough that demand good cdp replay.

* Me? I don't have an issue w digitally mastered albums on lp *

 

[spiritofmusic]

PS how many complete lps in your collection, not incl duplicates?

 

[audioquattr]

....
I would like to hear a direct MSB versus Lampi duel.

You are most welcome, i have both overhere.
And some analog ;-)

 

[Ron Resnick]

So, you're procuring a $500k system incl AS, top arms and carts, Pendragon 4 towers, and room treatments?

But you won't spend $15k on a top class cdp?

That strikes me as illogical.

As you said, digitally mastered albums are best on cd. And you surely have enough that demand good cdp replay.

* Me? I don't have an issue w digitally mastered albums on lp *

No, I wrote “digitally recorded.”

 

[Blue58]

Thank you, Marc, for these relevant and thoughtful posts. (I am not snooty-snogging, you. I am being am serious.). Here you are reflecting accurately what I have posted.

If I loved “at least a couple of dozen digitally mastered albums” I actually would do exactly what you are suggesting. But the number of titles is nowhere near high enough to justify the effort and expenditure to a third high-quality source.

Rather than “at least a couple of dozen digitally mastered albums” it literally is two (2) titles: Famous Blue Raincoat and Surfacing.

I’m sure I also have a few 1980s rock and pop albums which were digitally recorded, but for me the (multi-track) recording quality of those albums is not high enough to justify the expense of high-quality digital. In other words replaying those relatively poorly recorded rock and pop titles on a digital system rather than on an analog system doesn’t improve the sound enough to compel me to acquire a whole digital system just for them.

This whole thread is a disgrace.
Ron, you say you only like two digitally mastered albums. That is a complete travesty. You are missing out on so much music that it is beyond belief. What about the rest of Sarah McLachlans albums whether recorded digitally or not! Have you seen her live? What about other musicians that put their heart and soul into music making for you to dismiss them because they are ‘not worthy of your consideration due to being digitally recorded!.
I’m thoroughly disappointed that you fail to set an example to others re. Your audiophile credentials, ie. not having a system to play music, in for what 3 years! And your complete lack of appreciation of music in all its genres.
There is so much music to enjoy and appreciate in whatever format, quality or style for you to declare you only like a select few albums.
I do not know and never have known anyone with such limited appreciation of music that I honestly feel you are in the wrong hobby.
Stop wasting your time, other people’s time and enjoy life, other cultures, other foods and other peoples.
I’m out of here.
And I’m pissed in the true British sense.

 

[sbo6]

Steve, may I ask what specifically you found more realistic about the Total DAC12 sound? And which MSB models have you heard? I think the general consensus among MSB fans is that the new generation MSB DACs (Discrete, Premier, Reference, Select II) is a different ballgame than the old one (Analog, Platinum etc.).

Thanks
Al

I must have heard the older version MSBs, I heard them about 3-4 years ago. In one of the owner's system it was replaced with the first version TotalDAC and the TD was more organic, more real, better definition of spacial cues, more fleshed out and my favorite benefit - more ease of flow (PRAT I guess), it really wasn't close. The TotalDAC in terms of tonal qualities reminds me of my Aqua but the TD12 is further refined and more meat on the bones. The Aqua does have a sense of space (sound stage width and floating spacial cues) like no other DAC I've heard, but to be fair I haven't heard them all.

 

[microstrip]

digital is good = we like digital = digital makes me happy = digital is satisfying because....... = digital is good enough and here is why

no problem.

digital is better than xxx = i prefer digital to xxx

train wreck.

nothing mysterious about it.

Hi rez digital is technically superior to vinyl, accepting that digital is better sounding would be a reversion of the audiophile paradigm that measurements and objective data are almost meaningless ...

IMHO as long as people will be listening to vintage recordings, carried for analog reproduction, we can expect people to prefer vinyl. Once we start listening to contemporary recordings, carried by the best sound engineers in digital with top equipment, we can expect preference to change. See how M. Fremer reacted to some of the latest digital vinyl Deutsche Grammophon recordings:

"At around 2am, as the reverberation of the Ninth's last notes faded away, I found myself exhausted, overwhelmed, and somewhat disoriented, all in the most pleasurable way, by the most convincing illusion I've ever experienced—by a considerable margin—of having been transported from my modestly sized listening room to a concert hall (the Berlin Philharmonie).
I haven't heard the multi-miked version. I have sets of the Beethoven symphonies by Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer, Leibowitz, Walter, and Paavo Järvi—all of them sound good, some better than others. This new one from Rattle and Berlin might be the most spatially together and believable of all, and it's digital. Of course, I think the reason for this is the minimal M/S miking. The digits are just how it's originally stored, and the software keeps getting better."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-aida-loudspeaker#bBC74eodd8LZryKP.99

 

[Ron Resnick]

So, you're procuring a $500k system incl AS, top arms and carts, Pendragon 4 towers, and room treatments?

But you won't spend $15k on a top class cdp?

That strikes me as illogical.

As you said, digitally mastered albums are best on cd. And you surely have enough that demand good cdp replay.

* Me? I don't have an issue w digitally mastered albums on lp *

It is logical to you that I should spend $15,000 to listen to two digitally recorded albums I love (at effectively $7,500 each to be able to play them using digital playback)?

 

[Ron Resnick]

This whole thread is a disgrace.
Ron, you say you only like two digitally mastered albums. That is a complete travesty. You are missing out on so much music that it is beyond belief. What about the rest of Sarah McLachlans albums whether recorded digitally or not! Have you seen her live? What about other musicians that put their heart and soul into music making for you to dismiss them because they are ‘not worthy of your consideration due to being digitally recorded!.
I’m thoroughly disappointed that you fail to set an example to others re. Your audiophile credentials, ie. not having a system to play music, in for what 3 years! And your complete lack of appreciation of music in all its genres.
There is so much music to enjoy and appreciate in whatever format, quality or style for you to declare you only like a select few albums.
I do not know and never have known anyone with such limited appreciation of music that I honestly feel you are in the wrong hobby.
Stop wasting your time, other people’s time and enjoy life, other cultures, other foods and other peoples.
I’m out of here.
And I’m pissed in the true British sense.

I am sorry you are upset, but I see no rational, logical basis for you to be upset. I truly do not understand why you feel a compulsion to impose your musical interest views and values on me.

Please Peter’s posts #338 and #345, above.

I don’t understand at all your point that I am setting a bad example for other audiophiles here, and that my audio credentials (I am not sure what that means) are not bona fide because my house has been undergoing structural repairs for the last five years, and, as a result, I have not had a big system. I agree with Kedar’s view that I am setting a positive example by traveling the world auditioning numerous top-tier as well as more modest systems to gain a much broader and better understanding of many different audio components and how those components are matched into different systems and with different sonic results. I would submit that such breadth of auditioning experience (as opposed to evaluating and triangulating everything against the narrow perspective of one’s own personal system) improves my “audiophile credentials.”

PS: I have no idea what it means to be “pissed in the true British sense.” I thought the stereotype of English people, at least, is that they remain calm and unflustered.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ron, Barry doesn't get you.
And you don't get Paul McGowan.
The whole history of the world is run on people not getting other people LOL.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, Barry doesn't get you.
And you don't get Paul McGowan.
The whole history of the world is run on people not getting other people LOL.

Wrong again, Marc. After Paul answered my questions I “get” him completely, and I understand and I totally respect his preference.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ron, I have absolutely no idea how much music I'm gonna find streaming, but I feel compelled to give it a go.

I am highly reticent because I really am "all thumbs" when it comes to computers, and I have no feel for choosing music this way.

But I'm also compelled and would feel I'm letting myself in not finding a world of new music.

And as a vinylphile well ahead of being a digiphile, it would be easy to say no.

But this would be a mistake, and I really do think it's too easy to say you just cannot relax w digital.

You said once you loved discovering London Grammar. Tidal/Qobuz would via Roon enable you to find another dozen artists at least I'm sure you'd love. They would most likely all be digitally recorded. So, you're not up for enjoying these at excellent SQ?

You loved my Eera cdp. Eera dacs start at $5k. Add in a Roon Nucleus or Innuos Zenith, and $10k gets you playback commensurate or better than analog at the same price.

My Eera cdp is $13k, and it's not embarassed by tts 2-3x the price. This comment coming from an lp first listener.

 

[bonzo75]

Hi rez digital is technically superior to vinyl, accepting that digital is better sounding would be a reversion of the audiophile paradigm that measurements and objective data are almost meaningless ...

IMHO as long as people will be listening to vintage recordings, carried for analog reproduction, we can expect people to prefer vinyl. Once we start listening to contemporary recordings, carried by the best sound engineers in digital with top equipment, we can expect preference to change. See how M. Fremer reacted to some of the latest digital vinyl Deutsche Grammophon recordings:

"At around 2am, as the reverberation of the Ninth's last notes faded away, I found myself exhausted, overwhelmed, and somewhat disoriented, all in the most pleasurable way, by the most convincing illusion I've ever experienced—by a considerable margin—of having been transported from my modestly sized listening room to a concert hall (the Berlin Philharmonie).
I haven't heard the multi-miked version. I have sets of the Beethoven symphonies by Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer, Leibowitz, Walter, and Paavo Järvi—all of them sound good, some better than others. This new one from Rattle and Berlin might be the most spatially together and believable of all, and it's digital. Of course, I think the reason for this is the minimal M/S miking. The digits are just how it's originally stored, and the software keeps getting better."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-aida-loudspeaker#bBC74eodd8LZryKP.99

Fremer in another report, not Aida, said that he preferred that recording on vinyl rather than digital due to the miking used for either being different.

I agree about recordings, the best LPs were the ones produced for the golden era and are meant to be played back on vinyl and that's where the real superiority comes from. Except for some extremely few select later era represses of LPs, the LPs that a normal audiophile picks up in a charity shop or on discogs without understanding pressings, is not necessarily going to beat digital. In fact then depending on the recording you play either format can go either way, irrespective of the gear you have. What most of the knowledgable audiophiles who do not have access to the money and the LP stock of people like the General do is to get some reissues of Classic Records and speakers corner, and a few other good pressings like Harmonia Mundi etc. These can sound better than good digital when the equipment is extremely well set up by a seasoned analogphile but good digital recordings can sound very good anyway.

The problem with hirez digital from these new sites that have come up is very few are good performances. Both Bill and I never got into most of the stuff that sites like Channel Classics or FIM have on their digital. This is where analog is clearly superior, excellent performances on excellent recordings from the golden era, and this is true for classical, blues, jazz, rock. However, digital has some great recordings, especially safety master rips of some of these performances, and the access to music is far higher. It is not easy to get the dynamic range and gain and drive of digital unless the whole analog system is extremely well matched, and this is why you see a lot of analogphiles with horns and the other way, because the dynamic range and gain and drive with analog in these systems is easier to get in others it is more difficult.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi rez digital is technically superior to vinyl, accepting that digital is better sounding would be a reversion of the audiophile paradigm that measurements and objective data are almost meaningless ...

sigh. long sigh. grimace.

it seems we continue the dance.

just my opinion; it's not relevant whether an argument can be made that digital is technically superior. not saying it is, as i leave the technical arguments to you.

IMHO as long as people will be listening to vintage recordings, carried for analog reproduction, we can expect people to prefer vinyl. Once we start listening to contemporary recordings, carried by the best sound engineers in digital with top equipment, we can expect preference to change. See how M. Fremer reacted to some of the latest digital vinyl Deutsche Grammophon recordings:

"At around 2am, as the reverberation of the Ninth's last notes faded away, I found myself exhausted, overwhelmed, and somewhat disoriented, all in the most pleasurable way, by the most convincing illusion I've ever experienced—by a considerable margin—of having been transported from my modestly sized listening room to a concert hall (the Berlin Philharmonie).
I haven't heard the multi-miked version. I have sets of the Beethoven symphonies by Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer, Leibowitz, Walter, and Paavo Järvi—all of them sound good, some better than others. This new one from Rattle and Berlin might be the most spatially together and believable of all, and it's digital. Of course, I think the reason for this is the minimal M/S miking. The digits are just how it's originally stored, and the software keeps getting better."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-aida-loudspeaker#bBC74eodd8LZryKP.99

i have many large scale modern digital recordings with the highest resolutions, and appropriate gear to hear them on. i don't share your comparative viewpoint.

but....to my point above that you quoted.....i love these digital classical digital recordings and they make up over 50% of my listening time. all is good with digital......but.....let's just stay away from the whole 'better than xxx' or 'prefer it to xxx'.....and all is well.

i agree with what you quoted from Mr. Fremer, and even that the software keeps getting better. but so does the vinyl.

and there are few recent large scale classical analog recordings, so it's hard to speak much to how modern digital classical is better. only that it's here to enjoy now and the new analog sourced vinyl classical is not.

 

[asiufy]

I must have heard the older version MSBs, I heard them about 3-4 years ago. In the owner's system it was replaced with the first version TotalDAC and the TD was more organic, more real, better definition of spacial cues, more fleshed out and my favorite benefit - more ease of flow (PRAT I guess), it really wasn't close. The TotalDAC in terms of tonal qualities reminds me of my Aqua but the TD12 is further refined and more meat on the bones. The Aqua does have a sense of space (sound stage width and floating spacial cues) like no other DAC I've heard, but to be fair I haven't heard them all.

Might've been old MSB. Heard the TotalDAC (two different models), and can't say I agree with your assessment.

Now, that characteristic of the Aqua is indeed very particular to it. It does render space and ambience like no other!