Introspection and hyperbole control

[Al M.]

Al M. is a digital only guy, and a digital proponent, but he too hears the virtues of vinyl and thinks it can do some things better than digital can. So, when you write that proponents of digital are in agreement, what do you mean? Could you please explain if they are digital only guys and what they are in agreement of?

Peter, our posts crossed. Yes, I do think that great vinyl like yours and Madfloyd's still does some things better than most digital, including mine (I would have to hear more from the dCS Vivaldi and other heavy weights in order to get a better idea of where they stand with repect to vinyl, and we will hear the NADAC shortly).

Yet I have repeatedly said that I am convinced that digital theory is correct, and that there is no loss of information by sampling -- and here I am in agreement with what is said in the video as well. Yet the perfection of digital theory is one thing, the imperfection of implementations thus far another. There are many practical pitfalls that prevent reaching the ideal of theory, as we both also have discussed over drinking coffee and on other occasions....

Again, I am in agreement with the theory as outlined in the video, which is well worth watching.

 

[amirm]

I have not yet watched the video, but I hope to soon. Amir, your comment, "proponents of digital are in agreement", is interesting. Are you talking about digital only guys or all proponents of digital. I know well two guys in my Boston area audio group who have both analog and digital. I don't think I would refer to Ian, MadFloyd, as a digital proponent, but he likes digital and he likes analog. He recently told me and wrote on the forum that he thinks digital may be "lossy". Al M. is a digital only guy, and a digital proponent, but he too hears the virtues of vinyl and thinks it can do some things better than digital can. So, when you write that proponents of digital are in agreement, what do you mean? Could you please explain if they are digital only guys and what they are in agreement of?

That the commonly shown graphs of digital having steps is a myth. That's all the video explains. It would be hard to be fan of digital yet turn around and believe your analog music is represented as little steps all over .

 

[Al M.]

I don't think I would refer to Ian, MadFloyd, as a digital proponent, but he likes digital and he likes analog. He recently told me and wrote on the forum that he thinks digital may be "lossy".

I would agree with Ian that in practice thus far digital may be "lossy", but not in theory -- in theory it is lossless, and the closer practical implementation gets to theory, the less losses there will be. Analog in practice is also "lossy", but perhaps less in ways that would affect achieving an approximation of the real thing, the standard of unamplified live music, to both our ears.

Thing is, the implementation of analog on vinyl can never be lossless, digital theoretically can be. But of course practice does not always follow theory, given that we have had imperfect 'perfect sound forever' since over three decades now...

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I would agree with Ian that in practice thus far digital may be "lossy", but not in theory -- in theory it is lossless, and the closer practical implementation gets to theory, the less losses there will be. Analog in practice is also "lossy", but perhaps less in ways that would affect achieving an approximation of the real thing, the standard of unamplified live music, to both our ears.

Thing is, the implementation of analog on vinyl can never be lossless, digital theoretically can be. But of course practice does not always follow theory, given that we have had imperfect 'perfect sound forever' since over three decades now...

You are getting into other areas of digital which are well beyond what this particular video set out to do and it takes no position whatsoever on whether digital is ultimately lossless or not compared to the analog mike feed.

In fact, digital is not completely lossless in theory. There is still quantization error due to the discrete levels of digital encoding, even if all else is perfect. How small or audible that is becomes a different question entirely. I happen to think it is a non-issue today. I have heard numerous recording engineers with much prior background in analog opine that to them digital with sufficiently high resolution, well above RBCD, is audibly indistinguishable from the analog mike feed. I have also heard many computer audiophiles who rip LPs in hi rez digital claim that the rip is audibly indistinguishable from the LP.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think a break from the digital discussion is much-needed here and, by me for one, would much appreciated. Especially since this thread is intended to focus on exaggerations and on a lack of introspection about assertions, and not on the usual digital versus analog debate, for which many other threads are more appropriate.

 

[Al M.]

I think a break from the digital discussion is much-needed here and, by me for one, would much appreciated. Especially since this thread is intended to focus on exaggerations and on a lack of introspection about assertions, and not on the usual digital versus analog debate, for which many other threads are more appropriate.

Ron,

you obviously initiated the debate with your post:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...erbole-control&p=375884&viewfull=1#post375884

Yes, this thread is intended to focus on exaggerations and on a lack of introspection about assertions. Yet a discussion if the assertions of Ken C. Pohlmann, as pointed out in your post, were exaggerated or not automatically entailed a discussion of vinyl vs. file.

So your request of stepping back from an analog vs. digital discussion after this post of yours which inevitably was bound to initiate it is, sorry to have to say it, somewhat baffling to me.

 

[Gregadd]

I think a break from the digital discussion is much-needed here and, by me for one, would[be] much appreciated. Especially since this thread is intended to focus on exaggerations and on a lack of introspection about assertions, and not on the usual digital versus analog debate, for which many other threads are more appropriate.

I resolve to try to stay out of such debates.
Praise digital all you wish. On the ther hand the need to asnign motives to vinylphiles for preferring analog, unrelated to their belief it sounds superior, from delusion to nostalgia is over the top. So it was not his knwledge of digital I questioned. I wonder what is his basis for that knowledge of vinylphile preference.? His only basis was his position that digital is obviously better. Apparently not to those who have not embraced it as as such.It is pure speculation. AsTeresa Goodwin points out, if you found something you like that's wonderful. Vinylphiles do have to fight for the preservation of the software format. The rise in vinyl sales is encouraging.One can only hope for a quality product.

 

[Al M.]

On the ther hand the need to asnign motives to vinylphiles for preferring analog, unrelated to their belief it sounds superior, from delusion to nostalgia is over the top. So it was not his knwledge of digital I questioned. I wonder what is his basis for that knowledge of vinylphile preference.?

That seems to be the issue with many of my fellow digiphiles who trash vinyl lover's preferences. Many haven't heard SOTA analog, or if they did under show conditions, then probably not under optimal circumstances where it actually did sound SOTA. So while their technical knowledge of digital may be just fine, their aural knowledge of analog is wanting.

I bet if these digiphiles would hear SOTA analog in an optimized set-up in an audiophile's home they would fall off their chair in amazement and realize how foolish their opinions were.

 

[DaveC]

That seems to be the issue with many of my fellow digiphiles who trash vinyl lover's preferences. Many haven't heard SOTA analog, or if they did under show conditions, then probably not under optimal circumstances where it actually did sound SOTA. So while their technical knowledge of digital may be just fine, their aural knowledge of analog is wanting.

I bet if these digiphiles would hear SOTA analog in an optimized set-up in an audiophile's home they would fall off their chair in amazement and realize how foolish their opinions were.

Absolutely...

Blizzards take that it's all pleasant distortion is so wrong, also same with preamps. It's more complicated than that. I've heard RtR vs DCS and a good TT vs MSB stack, analog wins pretty easily. Just like distortion, order often makes more difference than magnitude, digital has less distortion but what it does have is nasty sounding. Analog has more distortion but it's far more benign vs digital.

 

[treitz3]

<snip> digital has less distortion but what it does have is nasty sounding.<snip>

Well, I wouldn't go that far....

Tom

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

That seems to be the issue with many of my fellow digiphiles who trash vinyl lover's preferences. Many haven't heard SOTA analog, or if they did under show conditions, then probably not under optimal circumstances where it actually did sound SOTA. So while their technical knowledge of digital may be just fine, their aural knowledge of analog is wanting.

I bet if these digiphiles would hear SOTA analog in an optimized set-up in an audiophile's home they would fall off their chair in amazement and realize how foolish their opinions were.

I do not believe in trashing other's musical and sonic preferences either. We all seek musical happiness, and that is a good thing. But, when it comes to issues of rationalizing one's preferences with statements that distort established fact, that is a different matter. If we are careful, we can debate those issues and whether or not they are true or factual. It should not change or undermine our basic sonic preferences. There is a difference between trashing someone's preferences and debating statements they might make in support of those preferences. That is more or less the distinction I see in the above discussion. Subtle, perhaps, but important.

Back to the thread's main topic. I personally think your last sentence is a form of hyperbole: "I bet if these digiphiles would hear SOTA analog in an optimized set-up in an audiophile's home they would fall off their chair in amazement and realize how foolish their opinions were." I have done this many times with often quite expensive, quite, optimized analog setups, and I have never fallen out of my chair. Some of that has been in the home of a reviewer well known in this forum. I have even enjoyed the listening and the music. But, I have also walked away unconvinced that vinyl is sonically better in any way or that I should dust off my turntable and start spinning LPs again.

That is my choice and my preference. But, I am not going to try to prove it to anyone or convince them of the error of their ways. I enjoy what I enjoy, and others are free to do the same in the way that best satisfies them.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron,

you obviously initiated the debate with your post:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...erbole-control&p=375884&viewfull=1#post375884

Yes, this thread is intended to focus on exaggerations and on a lack of introspection about assertions. Yet a discussion if the assertions of Ken C. Pohlmann, as pointed out in your post, were exaggerated or not automatically entailed a discussion of vinyl vs. file.

So your request of stepping back from an analog vs. digital discussion after this post of yours which inevitably was bound to initiate it is, sorry to have to say it, somewhat baffling to me.

Yes, you are correct. I apologize for being baffling. I should have suggested, if anything, only that the participants cool off a bit.

 

[amirm]

Yes, you are correct. I apologize for being baffling. I should have suggested, if anything, only that the participants cool off a bit.

That, we most certainly use today. Thanks for stating it Ron .

 

[Al M.]

Yes, you are correct. I apologize for being baffling. I should have suggested, if anything, only that the participants cool off a bit.

Thank you, Ron, no problem.

 

[Al M.]

Absolutely...

Blizzards take that it's all pleasant distortion is so wrong, also same with preamps. It's more complicated than that. I've heard RtR vs DCS and a good TT vs MSB stack, analog wins pretty easily. Just like distortion, order often makes more difference than magnitude, digital has less distortion but what it does have is nasty sounding. Analog has more distortion but it's far more benign vs digital.

I am less sensitive to digital distortions that some seem to be, and my own Berkeley DAC hardly has any nasty ones -- the glassy digital harshness of yesteryear is largely absent. Yes, the sound can be hard, but then less as an artifact and more as a true reflection of the natural hardness of instruments, e.g., brass -- I like that.

My concern with digital is more about timbral resolution and accuracy.

 

[bonzo75]

I am less sensitive to digital distortions that some seem to be, and my own Berkeley DAC hardly has any nasty ones -- the glassy digital harshness of yesteryear is largely absent. Yes, the sound can be hard, but then less as an artifact and more as a true reflection of the natural hardness of instruments, e.g., brass -- I like that.

My concern with digital is more about timbral resolution and accuracy.

Exactly - it is possible to get rid of the digital hardness, but near impossible to get that tone and timbre and reality. DSD is smooth as well, and pleasant.

 

[Purite Audio]

Exactly - it is possible to get rid of the digital hardness, but near impossible to get that tone and timbre and reality. DSD is smooth as well, and pleasant.

But digital isn't 'hard' it just has less of the distortions you enjoy, both media can sound fantastic, I really don't see why the continual argument.
Keith.

 

[Don Hills]

Exactly - it is possible to get rid of the digital hardness, but near impossible to get that tone and timbre and reality. DSD is smooth as well, and pleasant.

Start with the basics. Play a 1 KHz test tone track off a test LP. Listen carefully for a minute or two, or the full length of the track. (This is one test where longer term listening can work better than "quick switching".) Repeat with the same tone from a digital source. Swap back and forth a couple of times. Does the LP source really have superior "tone and timbre and reality"? What it has is micro fluctuations in level and frequency plus added signal-related noise, such as you might hear live in the same note produced by a human playing a flute. The digital source is steadier, but somewhat "sterile" by comparison. Even though you know the digital source is more accurate, you may well prefer the effect of the LP source. Now consider that the effects you hear when listening to the LP sourced tone are going to be present in every piece of music you play on that turntable. If you like those effects, of course you're going to prefer the LP.

 

[bonzo75]

Start with the basics. Play a 1 KHz test tone track off a test LP. Listen carefully for a minute or two, or the full length of the track. (This is one test where longer term listening can work better than "quick switching".) Repeat with the same tone from a digital source. Swap back and forth a couple of times. Does the LP source really have superior "tone and timbre and reality"? What it has is micro fluctuations in level and frequency plus added signal-related noise, such as you might hear live in the same note produced by a human playing a flute. The digital source is steadier, but somewhat "sterile" by comparison. Even though you know the digital source is more accurate, you may well prefer the effect of the LP source. Now consider that the effects you hear when listening to the LP sourced tone are going to be present in every piece of music you play on that turntable. If you like those effects, of course you're going to prefer the LP.

At a concert, does it get recorded in analog or digital? Why is digital more accurate? And DAC converts digital to analog, because digital is more accurate?

 

[Don Hills]

At a concert, does it get recorded in analog or digital? Why is digital more accurate? And DAC converts digital to analog, because digital is more accurate?

How long is a piece of string?
I'm sorry, you appear to be asking philosophical questions. Were you replying to what I wrote, or are you making a completely different point?

As for digital accuracy:
There is a widely held understanding that a "needledrop" of an LP, if done with care, sounds very much like the original LP playback. If the digital chain can do this accurately, it can likewise accurately capture / reproduce the original signal that was used to cut the LP. Any differences are therefore due to the LP cutting / reproduction chain and not to the digital chain. So if they sound different, which one is getting it wrong?