Dear @prof 1 : You but not really " read " because this is my first sentence I posted to you:
"""
Good that first of all you are a music lover. """
Second, you just does not read because like @fleschler I normally seat at around 10 row.
Near field experiences is exactly that: experiences and is what the micro pick up and I'm talking of recording in general not specific to classical venues that even here I own recordings with no ambience mics but only two and even one at near field position and in solo piano even inside the piano.
If you own some of the 3 blibd mice recordings you will read and see the mics diagram position that are almost inside eaxch instrument and with no ambience mics. The home audio system experience is an " illusion " and take that word literally.
One thing is what flesher says why he listen normally at 10 row like me and other different thing what the mics pick up..
Yes seated at 10 row things are way different and I already explained on my posts.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @prof 1 : """
I tend to prefer closer seating... """
at one two m.? because this is near field I'm talking about.
Yes, for you " that's absurd "" or """ silly "" and I respect your opinion. Btw, I'm not making any " judgmental " of you, I don't care about.
Facts are only that: facts. Got it? and know don't tell me just that is absurd or what ever you think. Tell me with facts why I'm wrong but before this tell me the distance to the live music source you are seated and next time bring with you a Radio Shack SPL meter and post here what you measured at your seated position.
R. |
and 4 of those analog recordings came from MF/AD that are not exactly " honest " about but both must deffend what their mouth talks.
R. |
Dear @prof 1 :: Good that first of all you are a music lover.
"
spaciousness and richness that makes my heart melt... "
those kind of adjectives ( that are " audiophiles " adjectives. ) no one can find out in a live music event seated at near field (1m-2m- ) at true live SPLs.
""" A sentiment that could only come from someone invested in the SOUND of a system ..."""
My dear @prof all music lovers and sound lovers invested in the SOUND system.
I started that way and still I am enjoying the SOUND of my system.
Things are that in the past I was truly a sound lover even that at the same time I was and I'm a music lover.
Trhough the last years I made my self a question: where are " seated " the microphones that pick up the recording sessions ? and I found out that are at " near field " position.
So, I had several opportunities to listen big symphonic and band orchestras and instruments alone at true " near field " position and trhough those experiences I learned that what we listen at home systems is only an " illusion " that is far away of the sound of music at near field position.
From those nearfield experiences and my audiophile experiences in my and many many different home audio systems I changed my main audio room/system target that always was focus in quality levels of my system.
Today my main target is not that spaciousness/richness or other sound lovers adjectives but to stay truer to the recording that for me means leave all my room/system generated/developed distortions/ everykind and everywhere at minimum.
That puts me " truer to the recording " and nearer to the near field live music. Yes I know I'm far away from here but that is my target.
When an audio room/system is truer to the recording always is achiving the best quality level performance and always we will like what we are listening on it.
@tomwh , I'm not against tubes per se but because always goes against my target ( for many years I was using tube electronics till I learned. ), it's the worst link in any audio system. Tubes not only goes against MUSIC but against quality SOUND levels: no matters what.
I like the analog experience but digital is way way ahead my more distance that what we analog lovers like to think.
Btw, in the February Stereophile magazyne from 46 choosed R2D4 ONLY 13 are full analog. This is less than 29%, go figure ! !.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
@tomwh , do you know why almost all the big symphonic orchestras Directors and players of almost any kind of instruments ( even those in jazz quartes or rock music. ) that made that work for " all their lifes " are almost " deaf "?, because were exposed all those years to very high SPLs that's the way " sounds " the live MUSIC at near field position where they were seated or stand up.
I respect every instrument player opinions but I understand the why's of their opinions. Did you? |
|
Dear @edgewear: Your guess was rigth-on.
If for " neutral " you mean: lower noise levels, lower overall signal degradation, lower overall distortions, way better bass range management, etc, etc, the it’s because is more " neutral ".
Yes, we have more " fun " with analog but that’s not of what I’m talking about as it’s not:
"" the sonic characteristics to suit your musical tastes. """
Each one of us " musical tastes " are not directly in relationship with the room/system target: truer to the recording.
Where when the performance of the room/system is " truer to the recording " always will suit our musical tastes.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @edgewear: AHEE: Audio High End Establishment.
Now, normally our room/audio systems are " optimized " to listen the analog alternative not for the digital one.
So when we want to listen seriously to the digital alternative we must to make changes in our room/system because its overall performance is way different.
We can think that in an analog rig digital will performs marvelous but other important issue is that when we listen to digital we WANT that performs with the same analog characteristics. No way about both alternatives are way way different. Digital is a lot more demanding that analog.
When your room/system is optimased for digital then analog always will performs better than ever. ! ! !
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @fleschler : I prefer too the 10 row for the same you like. My nearfield experiences were an " open eyes " to say the least and the greattest learning lessons in all my audio life.
So: am I throw away my LPs and analog rig?, certainly not. Because all what I posted here the anlog experiences are " appealing " when the audio system is truer/nearest to the recording.. I enjoy the analog experiences.The only system audio link that I always try to avoid is any single tube in the cartridge signal ( even that I used for many years tube electronics. ), full SS electronics is IMHO the rigth way to go till appears something better to honor the LIVE MUSIC.
I know a very well regarded cartridge designer that marketed and co-designed an all SS phono stage and knowing this gentleman I understand why.
That same gentleman was whom told me in the cartridge MM extremely long thread that LOMC cartridges were lower in distortions than the very good MM alternative.
But in those " old times " I was really motivitaded/exited for my new MM/MI cartridge re-discovery and I said that MM was better.
Years latter I learned and he was totally rigth LOMC is way superior to the MM/MI alternative and there are several reasons about but this will be for some other thread.
R. |
and not only that but that AHEE never never said us why 5 is the rigth answer for live MUSIC instead 2x2=4.
If I talk with a tube lover or even a tube manufacturer always they told me why tubes are the rigth way to go why the 5 is the " true " but never told me any one of them why tubes is nearer to the LIVE MUSIC instead SS electronics that is the real alternative nearer/truer to the recording and the live MUSIC. SS electronics is part of the 4 answer and tube is part of the 5 answer.
Here and everywhere I posted many time supported by common sense facts and with first hand experiences in live MUSIC at near field why the 5 is totally wrong and why the 4 is the rigth answer and till today no one every where told me why I'm wrong other that " they are just sound lovers: that's what I like it ".
The 5 AHEE ha no foundations, precise foundation.
Sooner or latter LIVE MUSIC will win as is winning the digital alternative that always is growing up and minute after minute up-grading its technology, rigth now is almost a reality the 32/768 DACS where the limits of the analog alternative end years ago, exist no real grow up because there is nothing to do about but little refinements of " more of the same " but nothing through different up-grade.
Yes, I'm still an analog lover with over 7K+ LPs and at the same time I love the digital alternative.
Any one of you sound lovers can make an easy test through your 5 audio systems:
buy the 1989 Original Motion Picture Sondtrack Glory in CD and the 2000 from Gladiator CD and buy the respective LPs and then listening both in your analog rig and in any decent 24/192 CDP. Any one with the LIVE MUSIC near field experiences will know which one is nearest to.
Of course that to attest that the roo/audio system must be a true full range one with active/passive speaker " set ".
There are other examples of CD vs today LPs that like those two LPs are audiophile pressings levels. I own both and many more about.
But indeed digital is not superior from 10 years now but just almost from the begining and we can attest it through many of the digital recordings using the Soundstream PCM digital recording electronics in the Telarca LP's or the Delos or Denon labels and many more, even that in those old times the digital alternative was in the begining of its learning shape.
At any standards many of those LP digital recordings are just outstanding.
R.
|
Dear @edgewear: I almost agree with what you posted. Of course that always recorded music ( no matter what. ) is totally crushed by live MUSIC and yes any one but a deaf man can identify live music sound from a street player even if he is playing way out/distance of our sigth/eyes.
Sound lovers against MUSIC lovers and what am I trying to say?:
all those adjectives that use as " sound/music " characteristics that certainly we are accustom to by many many years is a kind of sound that does not exist in live MUSIC events at distance where normally the recording microphones are positioned.
These microphones are responsables to pick-up/first hand the MUSIC ( of course that at the very first moment that that live MUSIC goes into de microphones and the cable to the mic-electronics the signal is degraded, no question about. ) and from here pass through several steps till we can listen it at our home audio systems.
Now, we analog lovers always want that MUSIC sounds in our systems with all those " sound lovers " adjectives/characteristics but from where came all those wrong MUSIC adjectives?, this is a critical issue:
I learned as all of you from the AHEE where we all belongs and reviewers, manufacturers, audio distributors etc, etc.
What told us the AHEE? things like BD TT is the way to go, LOMC cartridges is the only way to go, tubes is the rigth way to go, tonearms with fixed headshells is the way to go, passive speakers is the way to go, subwoofers? only for home theater, and a lot of more information that still today we all received from there.
The overall audio industry is a business and the AHEE always protect what they teach os from the begining of the analog audio.
All of us learned through the corrupted AHEE that 2x2=5 not 4. Even today we still think in that answer as rigth and never as our self: what if what we learned is just wrong. What if it's?
Digital is what is nearer tothat true 4. It's not exactly the 4 but way nearer than the analog alternative.
Digital is truer to the recording than analog, the microphones signal through digital recording/playback overall process is way way less degraded that the analog alternative but because that disastrous AHEE when we listen to the digital alternative what the adjectives we use to speak against digital are exactly the same true characteristics that LIVE MUSIC owns/has.
So why want we the LIVE MUSIC sounds in a way different way?
I said that overall digital is truer to the recording ( even with all degradation steps where the signal pass through. ) and be truer to the recording means nearest to the LIVE MUSIC.
A few years now I made my self that question: what if many of what the AHEE teach was just wron? and I start to learn for my self in my system and other audio systems that the AHEE teach us wrong " things " on purpose.
From some years now my system target is to stay truer to the recording no matters if I'm listening to the analog alternative or the digital one, my system is builded around that target and to be nearest to that target my first premise is to mantain at minimum every single source of everykind of distortions that can affect the incoming audio signal.
All those discussion about tubes vs SS electronics or LOMC vs MM cartridges and the like was provocated by our wrong learnend audio information for that 5 and some of us just can't understand ( even by ignorance of how live MUSIC really sounds. ) that the true/real answer is not that false 5 but 4 and to understand why the 4 is the rigth answer we must have first hand experiences of live MUSIC at near field position experiences.
Pweople do not like SS electronics because belongs to that 4 and like tubes because is the 5 that destroy every audio signal that pass through where SS is truer to the recording and nearer to the 4.
And that's why I posted a difference between " sound lovers " and true MUSIC lovers where sound lovers are in reality hardware lovers and it's not their culprit but that corrupted AHEE that till today almost never gives us that 4 answers.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @fleschler and friends: As I said almost all the gentlemans posting in this thread and overall all Agon forums and almost everywhere the internet audio forums always speaks of sound and its quality they are accustom to but almost no one speaks about MUSIC.
What mean I with that statement?, well MUSIC is percieved by us like a sound but it’s not the same speak to just " sound " that the true sound of live MUSIC at near field position experiences and with out these kind of first hand live MUSIC experiences seated at near field position we just can’t even try to compare not only digital vs analog but almost any home audio room/system issues or characteristics.
What we read at almost any audio forum from the " audiophiles " when refering of the characteristics of what they are hearing and like in their systems are adjectives that only exist in their home audio room/systems but that certainly does not belongs to the unique live MUSIC characteristics at near field at near field position.
Some of those adjectives by " audiophiles " are: swetness, delicated, rounded, softness, inner detail, depness in the soundstage, tactile, calm, peace, organic, musical, relaxed, warm, etc, etc.
If we attend to a live MUSIC event and we are seated at near field position ( say 1-3 m. from the source. ) what we can hear is: brigthness, agresiveness, thunderous, very high SPL, even some one could say: harsh and some other adjectives and things are that this kind of MUSIC sound is what the recording microphones pick-up at near field position where the mics are " seated ", some times even closer than 1m.
Ask you how many times were you stand up at 1m from a Grand piano where the player was playing at real live concert SPLs ?, the true sound of that experience tell you that you even can’t " support " to listen it maybe for more than 15 minutes and then you will get back but what if you do it not with a piano but a horn like a trumpet or a Sax alto: you will blow away in a few seconds ! ! ! !
Recording Microphones are really wide frequency range ( say from even lower than 10hz to over 60khz and support SPLs higher than 130dbs with very low distortion levels ) and way superior in many regards that our ears.
Now, if that kind of characteristics are the ones along other like the very fast transients in live MUSIC and fast harmonic developments why we " audiophiles " use other kind of vocabulary with audio systems and by " coincidence " when analog lovers ( like me that like digital too. ) talk about digital recordings the adjectives usually used are precisely the ones I named that are the ones we experienced in a near field live MUSIC events ! ! ? ? ! ! ? ?
My opinion is that not all audiophiles are true MUSIC lovers but " sound lovers ", that’s way different. If some of you never had that near field live MUSIC experiences then do not understand what I’m talking about.
What’s the main diference between live MUSIC and recorded MUSIC?, well transiente response of the notes perceived by our ears/brain/body.
In live MUSIC event at near field exist only AIR between the MUSIC source and our overall body: nothing in between that can degrades the MUSIC sound.
At near field position we listen direct sound coming from the instruments and when seated at 10-15 rows ( in a concert hall. ) that direct sound certainly is not the same because between other things the hall chairs/seats absorb or dissipates that direct sound as does the people seated at our sides, at back and in front of us. The microphones are neither affected by all those. Near field position is way different.
The recording process in analog and digital are way different as it’s too ( and even with more " dramatic "/critical differences ) during play back in our sytem listening sessions.
First recording differences comes in the low bass range where the microphones pick up a stereo signal that never chnges to mono in the digital alternative as always happens in the analog recording process.
Second difference a big one is that the analog process apply a huge equalization of around 20db over the whole frequency range between 20hz to 20khz to even the RIAA eq. curve. This just does not happens in the recording digital process.
The degradation implications in that recording RIAA eq. curve are to many between other things that not only affect note to note but the developed harmonics too.
Third difference is that in the digital recording what is recorded in the recording tape are only zeros and ones that’s way different to the analog recorded signal in the tape where that signal is always added by the frequency range limit of the tape recorder, its noise levels, its distortion levels, etc, etc. that does not exist in the digital recording process.
Fourth difference is that cutting development process to make the mother stamper ( LP grooves ) to press each copy of a LP where at each pressing single LP the next pressed one is degraded by the degradation of the used stamper. All this does not happens with the digital alternative where each single track is an original master due that what is copy are only zeros and ones each time.
But the worst degradation, I can say a " nigthmare ", for the LP recorded signal comes during the playback process that starts with the off-center LPs and surface waves and micro-waves that the cartridge/tonearm must track.
After that the LP recorded signal is added of full of noise/distorions levels at each link where it pass through the playback process: TT own kind of noise/distortions ( evrykind. ), cartridge own distortions, tonearm own developed distortions/noises including the ones coming from the tonearm internal wiring, headshell connector input and tonearm connector output and even from the phono IC cable. In the digital playback process things are different and with lot less signal degradation. Additional and due that the cartridge output is a tiny one level the signal is " open " to be degraded by noise pollution.
The " nigthmare " only began and is followed by the cartridge/tonearm alignment in pivoted tonearms where even if we made that alignment perfect ( that never is. ) always eist a developed tracking distortion levels.
After the cartridge/tonearm/alignment the LP recorded signal is almost at " random " additional degradations due that the relationship between the tonearm and the cartridge mounted on it develops many kind of distortions starting with the in between resonance frequency range that affects the recorded signal.
All those followed by the cartridge tracking abilities to follows the LP grooves modulation in accurate way that never can be achieved loosing signal information.
And that’s all?, NO because way before we can listen in the speakers the signal reproduction the cartridge signal must goes to the " signal killer " named: phono stage where the signal, sometimes, has to be amplified 8k-10K times, depending of the cartridge output level, and inside that " signal killer " the cartridge signal must pass again to the RIAA eq ( this time inverse curve. ) to achieve " flat response but here exist several problems to achieve that " flat response ":
first no single analog phono stage comes with zero db deviation in the frequency inverse RIAA eq. and due to that can’t mimic the original signal ( we loss signal information here: adding or losted. ) and second even with zero deviations in the inverse RIAA eq curve no one knows for sure if in reality can mimic with the RIAA " deviations " developed in the recording process.
Instead digital playback is almost like the direct sound in a near field position listening: starigth, with a lot less signal degradations of everykind that exist in the recording/playback analog process.
After all those no one needs to be a " genius " to attest that analog got absolutely crushed by the digital alternative. Just no contest.
I’m not a sound lover but a MUSIC lover and that’s why I like analog and digital alternatives but I know that exist no superiority in the analog alternative no matter what.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Btw, some one said in the thread that the ones that likes digital are " stupid ", well then I'm " stupid " and so what?. That person is less stupid because dislike digital? . Maybe the other way around, ignorance/poor knowledge levels always exist.
R. |
Dear friends: This thread as some others ones shows the wide/big diversity of opinions or audio references or way of thinking on each one of us something like a Babel’s Tower and is impossible to have a true agreegment between 5-6 gentlemans.
We are in an audio analog forum and analog and digital we use it to listen MUSIC but on all this thread no one of us speak about MUSIC, no one speaks why digital or why LPs preferences against near field live MUSIC as a reference. Many not even has a refrence or the reference is other LP or other CD. The reference almost all of us have has nothing to do with live MUSIC at near field position.
If we can’t understand or even not experienced live MUSIC seated at near field position then our way of thinking always be and will be: " that’s what I like it " and we are and been not MUSIC lovers but only " sound " lovers that means almost nothing ! but the ones that like " sound ".
Digital and LP/analog technologies are only the " media " to really enjoy MUSIC not only to just listen " sound ". Of course that some of us only target is to listen " sound " with out care about the Sound of MUSIC.
Both technologies has its own trade-offs and like many of you I enjoy digital an analog.
The OP thread tittle is rigth: digital crushed analog with out doubt and not because I said or say that but because exist facts behind the digital superiority against so many analog trade-offs facts.
Yes, I love the art work in the LPs but this fact makes no MUSIC, I like R2R analog " sound " but is imperfect and inferior to digital, I like what surrounded the analog experience at home but I like it not for make " sound " but to stay nearer to the near field live MUSIC always.
The digital and analog recording proccess are not exactly the same as are way different the digital and analog playback overall proccess.
If we try to understand those digital and analog recording/playback proccess then all of we could speak more or less the same language that’s the live MUSIC language and not only speak of sound.
Reading through this thread many of us have some kind of misunderstood on all those proccess and we speak according to those misunderstood of facts.
Example: LP’s samples never are " original " and faaway from been " Original master recording " but a copy of. Digital always is the master not a copy.
Seems to me that even that we are in an analog forum our targets are way different and not always related with near field live MUSIC experiences and nothing wrong with that because it’s a privilege for each one of us to decide about.
In the latest years my main target is to stay truer to the recording that permit me to stay nearer to the near field live MUSIC.
Today my room/audio system is not just a hooby but a lot something " else " something more than a hooby because MUSIC is an important part of overall way of life.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @chadsort: Sorry my fault ( thank's @uberwaltz . ).
I'm a music lover and like today digital and analog alternatives. Your digital hardware is a good one but nothing exceptional for today digital latest technology and even that " crushed " analog and you are rigth.
Latest today digital technology outperforms the best today analog one, no matter what and no matters hwta analog lovers ( like me ). could think: no one analog lover has true facts that can prove the analog superior quality performance other that: " I like it " and this is not an objective fact.
I own thousands of LP's and if I was you the best way to go is to put on sale the analog rig and LP's and invest the more you can in digital.
Analog needs not only money, a lot of learning patience, from whom you learn and years ( noth months ) to fine tunning the analog rig.
Even several of the gentlemans that already posted in your thread in favor of analog that already gave you their advises are still learning in the same way I do every single day.
If you can justified all the very hard efforts you must do to stay nearer to digital alternative that's up to you but with 50 LP's ? ? ? ? , maybe with 500 LP's you can meke the analog home work but at the end: best today analog can't outperforms today best digital alternative to listen MUSIC.
No, that no one try to convince you that in a few more weeks/months you really learned about analog because the one that could tells that is a lier.
The analog forums ar full of audiophiles that own not hundreds of LP's but thousands of LP's and that are " accustom " for many many years to the analog distortions ( including me. ), exist a clear justification for the analog rig and the other is that even today exist some recordings that we can't get in digital format.
When we analog lovers are talking about always " win " our subjective opinion over facts. It's " crazy " but it's the way things are. MUSIC is not a subjective issue but objective one that intrinsically comes with some subjective characteristics, that's all.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
@chadsort: Again, how many LP's do you own? Could you give an answer? Thank's
R. |
Dear @chadsort: How many LP's do you own? Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
