How do you know when you are done?

[Mike Lavigne]

Is there any possible way we can stop talking about digital vs vinyl on a thread entitled “ how do you know when you’re done?”. The entire discussion is intellectually bankrupt and offers no learning or growth whatsoever from participation in it.

there is never any discussion or thought about digital verses analog after a session in my room. OTOH there are practical and music access considerations too. and system asset allocation questions. but never performance questions. only answers.

and then there is WBF forum realities, experience differences, and baggage people bring to discussions. and the proclivity to prolong them for various reasons.

just don't confuse rhetoric with optimal music reproduction realities. they are different things. denial is not a river in Egypt.

 

[JiminGa]

It does. I thought I was done with my source front when I was only digital, then discovered the joys of analog, then discovered recording differences. It puts forward a whole new hobby and can change system strategy, previous auditions done may or may not hold true, so you come undone

Look I get the allure of both but one type of joy is not superior to another for all people. The growth/learning comes from the personal discovery not from defending it or enforcing it on someone else. In my case I started with vinyl back in the 60s. My fondest memories are listening as a teenager with my best friends. To this day certain music is best listened to on vinyl. “What’s going on”, “Dark side of the moon “. Cohesive musical statements designed to be listened to as a whole. Digital is more hunt and peck one at a time. Some music has no well recorded digital option so vinyl is best there as well. No matter what format you listen to it shouldn’t affect you choice of speaker or amplification if that’s what you getting at. They care more about room interaction, linearity and noise reduction than whether the analog signal they were fed was converted from digital. I honestly don’t understand the debate. These days there are awesome choices for each.

 

[JiminGa]

there is never any discussion or thought about digital verses analog after a session in my room. OTOH there are practical and music access considerations too. and system asset allocation questions. but never performance questions. only answers.

and then there is WBF forum realities, experience differences, and baggage people bring to discussions.

just don't confuse rhetoric with optimal music reproduction realities. they are different things. denial is not a river in Egypt.

Of course

 

[JiminGa]

Yes, but participating in WBF is not exactly listening to music. And sound reproduction needs gear. This forum is focused on high-end audio.

Sure

 

[Rensselaer]

Yes, but participating in WBF is not exactly listening to music. And sound reproduction needs gear. This forum is focused on high-end audio.

I believe you belong to a small, but quite vocal, sub-group of audiophiles who are into gear more than music enjoyment. Measurements and advanced engineering mattering most? That is not a bad thing, it is what interests you. However I believe it would be a mistake to argue with those audiophiles who prefer sound quality, based upon measurements or interesting engineering details, as IMHO, they have no direct relationship.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Of course

digital is excellent. the differences are not night and day, not about winners and losers. but they are significant and musically profound and clear.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

The stage was separated from the audience with chicken wire for a reason that I never fully understood until reading this thread.

...like Jake and Elwood at Bob's Country Bunker, where they had both kinds of music: country *and* western.

 

[Al M.]

I believe you belong to a small, but quite vocal, sub-group of audiophiles who are into gear more than music enjoyment. Measurements and advanced engineering mattering most. That is not a bad thing, it is what interests you. However I believe it would be a mistake to argue with those audiophiles who prefer sound quality over all based upon measurements or interesting engineering details.

I don't see how a preference for a source, be it analog or digital, has to do with a preference of measurements and aspects of engineering over sound quality. Perhaps on ASR, but not on WBF. In a similar vein, do not forget that Microstrip has tube amplification, as do I, even though tube amps measure worse in many respects than SS amps (the meaning of which can disputed; just recently there was a discussion thread about that).

Certainly, when it comes to comparing within each source medium and within each group of amplification, measurements may be deemed more important, even though also here the situation is not black and white either. Sound quality always wins.

 

[PeterA]

I don't see how a preference for a source, be it analog or digital, has to do with a preference of measurements and aspects of engineering over sound quality. Perhaps on ASR, but not on WBF. In a similar vein, do not forget that Microstrip has tube amplification, as do I, even though tube amps measure worse in many respects than SS amps (the meaning of which can disputed; just recently there was a discussion thread about that).

Certainly, when it comes to comparing within each source medium and within each group of amplification, measurements may be deemed more important, even though also here the situation is not black and white either. Sound quality always wins.

Al, I read Mark‘s comment to be more about the impression that Francisco discusses technology and gear more than he does music, at least here on WBF. He looks for reasons about why things sound the way they do. This is in contrast to others who have their preferences based on a subjective nature of listening to music, and then share their joy with the readers.

 

[bonzo75]

. The growth/learning comes from the personal discovery

I really don’t consider people who don’t learn in a hobby as hobbyists. That could be sport or any other hobby. There is a difference between being just a consumer and a hobbyist.

 

[PeterA]

The gap in auditioning is good music and recordings. That’s the primary source of realism, and so you end up selecting gear that lets the realism (recording) come through. If you do not have experience with that, you could end up selecting gear that adds something to one recording but not another, and since there is no benchmark in three months you will get bored and change gear to add something else, and so on.

That’s how Ron’s list of 4 is actually linked. With the right gear, if you reproduce the recording as much a possible, it will create realistic sound that is pleasing to the audiophile. With poor recordings and music they become 4 separate, independent points.

A very interesting post that could be the launching pad for a whole new discussion.

 

[wil]

Look I get the allure of both but one type of joy is not superior to another for all people. The growth/learning comes from the personal discovery not from defending it or enforcing it on someone else. In my case I started with vinyl back in the 60s. My fondest memories are listening as a teenager with my best friends. To this day certain music is best listened to on vinyl. “What’s going on”, “Dark side of the moon “. Cohesive musical statements designed to be listened to as a whole. Digital is more hunt and peck one at a time. Some music has no well recorded digital option so vinyl is best there as well. No matter what format you listen to it shouldn’t affect you choice of speaker or amplification if that’s what you getting at. They care more about room interaction, linearity and noise reduction than whether the analog signal they were fed was converted from digital. I honestly don’t understand the debate. These days there are awesome choices for each.

“ digital is more hunt and peck one at a time”

I hear this said often. Is this really the way people listen to music? I’ve always listened to complete albums whether with analogue or digital. I read books one at a time also. but I know people who are reading eight different books all simultaneously.

 

[Al M.]

Al, I read Mark‘s comment to be more about the impression that Francisco discusses technology and gear more than he does music, at least here on WBF.

Most people on WBF discuss gear more than music, including you, Peter.

When was the last time you participated on a music thread on WBF? I could ask Mark the same thing, BTW.

 

[Al M.]

“ digital is more hunt and peck one at a time”

I hear this said often. Is this really the way people listen to music? I’ve always listened to complete albums whether with analogue or digital. I read books one at a time also. but I know people who are reading eight different books all simultaneously.

Right, I was just listening on digital to two Haydn string quartets in their entirety, op. 55/1 and op. 55/3, in a wonderful performance by the Amadeus Quartet.

 

[wil]

Al, I read Mark‘s comment to be more about the impression that Francisco discusses technology and gear more than he does music, at least here on WBF. He looks for reasons about why things sound the way they do. This is in contrast to others who have their preferences based on a subjective nature of listening to music, and then share their joy with the readers.

I’ve read quite a few of this posts where he talks about music. And, he’s obviously interested in technology. What’s wrong with that?I think everyone here is interested in the technology also to some extent.

I don’t think it serves any good purpose to try to put people into categories.

 

[bonzo75]

A very interesting post that could be the launching pad for a whole new discussion.

I have actually mentioned that point many times when Ron brought up the list of 4 points, in different words, but he never related to that

 

[Rensselaer]

I don't see how a preference for a source, be it analog or digital, has to do with a preference of measurements and aspects of engineering over sound quality. Perhaps on ASR, but not on WBF. In a similar vein, do not forget that Microstrip has tube amplification, as do I, even though tube amps measure worse in many respects than SS amps (the meaning of which can disputed; just recently there was a discussion thread about that).

Certainly, when it comes to comparing within each source medium and within each group of amplification, measurements may be deemed more important, even though also here the situation is not black and white either. Sound quality always wins.

Read #545 and #558 again. I believe (#545) was saying digital or analogue are equally good for listening to music, and Microstrip’s reply to that (#558) was, for those on What’s Best Forum, it is not the music, but the high-end gear. I mentioned measurements only because it is a way of differentiating gear often cited by gear-heads (“Certainly, when it comes to comparing within each source medium and within each group of amplification, measurements may be deamed more important…”).

How did you understand it?

 

[Doc76]

I’ve read quite a few of this posts where he talks about music. And, he’s obviously interested in technology. What’s wrong with that?I think everyone here is interested in the technology also to some extent.

I don’t think it serves any good purpose to try to put people into categories.

While my ultimate goal is great music in my audio room, it took the proper equipment to get me there. So, for me both the music and equipment are equally important - at least at first. But once the equipment is satisfied to one’s requirements, all that remains is great music reproduction, at least for me.

 

[Al M.]

Read #545 and #558 again. I believe (#545) was saying digital or analogue are equally good for listening to music, and Microstrip’s reply to that (#558) was, for those on What’s Best Forum, it is not the music, but the high-end gear.

That is not what he said. Read #558 again.

I mentioned measurements only because it is a way of differentiating gear often cited by gear-heads (“Certainly, when it comes to comparing within each source medium and within each group of amplification, measurements may be deamed more important…”).

I do not appreciate when people quote out of context, or selectively quote while destroying the context.

My entire sentence was:

Certainly, when it comes to comparing within each source medium and within each group of amplification, measurements may be deemed more important, even though also here the situation is not black and white either. Sound quality always wins.

This gives it an entirely different meaning than you want to force out of it, wanting to make it about "gear-heads".

 

[PeterA]

Most people on WBF discuss gear more than music, including you, Peter.

When was the last time you participated on a music thread on WBF? I could ask Mark the same thing, BTW.

Yes for sure Al. It is a gear, and increasingly technology focused forum. But there are also many listening impression threads. I tend to participate in those that discuss how something actually sounds, not why it sounds the way it does. My comment was about you and me interpreting Mark's post about Franscisco quite differently. No big deal.

BTW, I discuss music mostly with friends in person and off line. Participating on a music thread on WBF is fine and fun, but that is not at all relevant to the point Mark made.