|
Mmakshak,
Way way back in this thread you were told that digital was not compatible with two channel playback. As you have found even stuffing tubes (lol) in a Cd player can't over come the fact you only have two speakers. I know how this topic rubs audiophiles the wrong way, but to say "digital"
is lacking when you haven't even tried to tap the real strenght of its abilities then your comments have an asterisk attached. And I am talking about stereo redbook Cd's
*when listening to digital on a two channel system, analog appears to better it.
Did you ever think that LP's enjoy homefield advantage on a two channel systems? as they were developed together at the same time over 5 decades?
Why is home theater so popular? surround sound of course! Now do you really think if audiophiles put their money where their mouth was and supported digital (better sound) and the surround companies who matter that it would be a matter of 6 months a year before improved multi-channel music systems would begin to appear for the music enthusiast!
I find that most audio equipment designers are clueless when it comes to the potential of surround. Most just slap the chips in from Dolby, Cirrus and car stereo EQ DSP's and call that a processor.
Think about how far back in the stone age audiophiles are when they are embracing amplifiers that have circuits that were used to send morse code from ship to ship in 1917! Have systems with no room correction or cannot adapt to the soundstage of an orchestra than to a soloist....these nuances left homogenized by room acoustics and the limitations of the basic pair of loudspeaker.
Funny thing is you never mentioned what speakers you have, which is likely a the source of yourpercieved "problems". It has been my direct experience that the high frequency problem likely exists in the speakers not the cd player.
New Records are not $3 a pop, used records are $3 a pop. So are used CD's $3-$5. Why is there a double standard applied? I'll tell you why, because any jr. high shop class can make a working turntable, its not that hard.
It takes a serious company with real tooling capacity to make a Cd transport. I've never seen a DIY Cd transport. Fear of the unknown, how many audiophiles are control freaks,,,lots its part of the personality.
IMO, the best CD transport were made in the early to mid nineties, they were overbuilt, pioneer stable platter. etc.
DVD transports are built so marginally its no wonder we still have significant jitter and data loss problems. But since we don't "see" the transport we likely don't perceive its part of the problem....so we fix what we can see...new cables or we buy a new more expensive transport
when the one we had was simply out of specification.
Having watched my grandfather (a true audiophile) and learning from him, todays audio enthusiast is a Consumer not a participant of the hobby. Knowledge is replaced by belief. Did jesus walk on water or did he walk across a reflection on the sand? What do you believe?
If a $20,000 preamplifier doesn't come with the right power cord, is the designer competent? What do you believe?
The right answer will never be a concensus as opinions represent beliefs. In the face of facts, there can be no opinion.
Have a good one |
"I don't understand why you would get rid of music."
2500 records + 6-700Cd's in a growing collection is like 5-6 years of continuous listening 24/7 Its just being practical especially when most of the music I gave or threw away I had little or no real interest in playing especially since records are of secondary quality on my system.
from my perspective it was the practical thing to do.
If you think about it all of LP's shortcomings, poor channel seperation, noise issues, bandwidth issues, need for compression and equalization all are exact opposites of what CD performance is. The lack of channel seperation plays right into only having two front speakers even if its recorded onto Cd! Because a 24bit Cd has waaaaaay more resolution than some tired record and the CD is capable of an excellent copy of the LP, try to do it the other way around! There are obstacles like the level of technical knowledge in the average audiophile. Many audiophles have a great deal of experience but have framed this into a religious frame work not a technical framework. So facts and trends are obscured by pet theories and fashionable trends not facts.
In your case your time windows have a slight raggedness in the lower treble (which I'm sure you can hear time to time on records) because the tweeter is asked to do a little much. With a CD this can be considerably worse due to the nature of the source. Hardly the "sound" of a CD. I have a $1200 pair of speakers that do not have this problem, so it is not necessarily a cost issue, it is a design issue.
The fact is many many speakers are not "digital ready" even though that was a laughable phrase for most when it was a marketing phrase in the 80's. Harsh high and lack of control on transients play into making CD less musical.
Tubes and LP's blur the edges making it easier for equipment to track.
The soul of the music is incrementally easier to reach the less "noise" your system makes and the "louder" you can play the music without room acoustics and equipment deficiencies creeping in to interfere. There has been studies on this... It is science that allows us to repeat the conditions, which is why audiophile companies don't want you to know the truth about it. |
Guido,
You would think that there would be more runaway jitter in a carstereo head unit than an audiophile system. Plus the head unit :(, is closer to the affected area.
My Cdplayer is kept at a safe distance if you know what I mean. :) |
Interesting, you have way more information than I could find, your specifics are appreciated |
Mmakshak,
That's too vague, help me out with some links to the Absolute Sound article. Was it Clapton Unplugged?
"What about a slight delay making the guitar sound too fast on 2-channel, but making sense on surround?"
A delay could make the guitar string sound like its been hit twice or blurred together....but as you verbalize the situation I have no answer for you.
Again, I need more specific info. See if any recordings you use have a similar feel. |
"I recall a study by RCA Labs in the nacent days of "HIFI" (late 40s, early 50s) in which they found that listeners preferred a mellow sound, and expecially disliked extended high frequenices."
Just more ignored information from so long ago.
and why people still listen to analog despite your personal transition. |
MMAk,
No, use with two channel CD's
Digital is better than analog, especially 24bit devices.
Neil Young is a hippy with marginal talent, when the greatest orchestra conductors in the world have no issue with digital why should we?
Mmak,
If I had Cerwin Vega D9's and told you that digital was perfect...would'nt you consider comments a bit influenced by the quality of my speakers? Your DCM's are of the same ilk and you need to get much better speakers because you are just wasting your time trying to quantify analog versus digital when you're speakers are flawed and have difficulty with digital playback as a matter of their character.
Also I disagree 100% with your statement that music is too relax too. Music is a prime mover for me and I thrive on the tension early REM songs (using a recently mentioned example of a band with poor thin recording quality as an aesthetic to their music) like "fall on me" which is a protest song and it should get your attention!
There's music for every emotion and that tension is what makes it compelling and interesting. If you're trying to relax to music like REM, then you're barking up the wrong tree. |
Audiofeel,
"You do not speak for those of us who know better."
The people in your cult calls the leader "Better"?
....that's kinda cool |
Audiofeel,
Did it ever occur to you that I might own other equipment? I think it's a bad mark on your character to disparage a system you have never heard or anything like it for that matter. What is shocking is my system has been picked twice over a system exactly like yours. Go figure, I would think I would have to whip out the Meridian to get a clear victory but that doesn't seem to be the case
Tubes and whizzer cones seem to have found an obstacle with my little surround system when it comes to playing music.
well I'm not worried about it. |
Adhoc;
We believe much of the same things except we are on opposite side of the line. I believe in and recognize the romance and nostalgia as you point out and please note I have had 10K records and still have atleast 2500.
I have had turntables from VPI, SOTA, Well Tempered, Linn and Roksan.
And preamps from AR, EAR, MOTIF, Audible Illusions
The thing is records are history, they are not coming back and when it comes to 24bit digital they aren't even close to the same quality.
I still (although rarely) get paid to setup turntables, I am still considered an analog expert by some people. Funny I know. But I know more about analog than I do digital right now, I bet you can you the same thing?
I know you "prefer" analog, but that doesn't make it better. I know why you prefer analog and it has to do with your system. A Subaru STi can mop up any Ferrari on a gravel dirt road, if you design a car for a particular enviroment it will outperform a superior car out of its element.
Analog and Digital are so different in what they demand from a system design to be their "best" you will almost never reach an equality between the two. I have tried for over a decade to get a balance and its difficult. My success with playing music in surround put an end to my struggles with analog as digital with surround is just too much for the LP to withstand.
We have to let go of the LP, so the hobby can move forward. $7,000+ turntables are never going to be supported widely, so we have to accept that if you have analog keep it enjoy it, but stop saying its better, because it isn't even close to what we can get from digital.
Let me use this analogy, sometime this year Brett Favre will stop being the Packers QB, its because he isn't getting any better and no matter how good he is now and how good he was, the Packers need to develop a new QB to attempt to solidify their future.
We have to support a digital format to fuel its development, the LP's best days are over. In four years we will put it in the Hall of Fame.
Digital is so much more than just a format, it get into room eq and other capabilites that will take audio to the next level. |
Mmakshak,
Digital is too good for two channel playback, it reveals the short comings of not having a proper speaker setup. Two channel isn't very good now that we have pushed the envelope of source performance this far which is why some of the best LP playback equipment begins to sound thin and less "musical" when improved.
I will not argue if you only have a two channel system that LP's maybe the best source for music. Their technical weaknesses actually benefitting the two channel arrangement.
Its been known for a very long time that surround provides a more musically involving experience (60-70 years). The audiophile consensus is that two good speakers is better than 5 mediocre ones and a subwoofer, my experience is too the contrary, just fyi.
Analog specific companies have mastered the art of THD, compression and EQ, and "better" is not a word that can be used to measure the technical performance but simply the subjective sound.
Your car stereo experience is only hinting at the huge gap between 2 channel and multichannel playback for digital sources, don't ignore it. It leads a long way to where you want to go
As Onhwy61 and others directly and indirectly have indicated, without added distortion two channel is a step down in sound, requiring compression and harmonic distortion to make it sound meaningful and full. I have clients who have their noses pressed up against this very problem...more distortion or more channels? Because that is exactly the choice you have if you want to play digital recordings and "feel" it.
To address the typical responses to a post like this let me address two irratatingly thoughtless comments used as a rebuttle to such comments.
1. for the two ears, two channels comments---my answer is stop being a simpleton
2. for the mixed to be two channel crowd, name one commonly used microphone with a 180 degree pickup pattern? Its all I ask. Answer this one and then I'll consider your rebuttle as validated.
|
"I get tense listening to cd. I know that many people don't, so I'm not sure that their advice might apply to me."
Something is incompatible with digital in your system, fact is a system designed around analog will likely not sound good playing digital and your tenision with digital is likely more a reflection of your equipment's capability than your tastes and sensibilities. Please do not read that you have poor equipment, a Dirt Late Model is not the same as one made for asphalt. Though they are both very fast 358 cu inch cars and run on 1/2 mile circuits one is better on one surface than the other. Your audio system will likely be the same way.
Digital is very linear and its dynamic range is and can be disconcerting to listeners
Analog, compressed (RIAA), EQ, very non linear and is easier to listen too, highs are not linear and for equipment to playback. So the stress levels are down on all parts.
My system is designed around digital, I make compromises and adjustments on preamp and cartridge selection to adjust my analog accordingly to a system that will not flatter it. You may need to do the same (in reverse). |
"I have to mention that I believe that you need to have analog(pre-1982) to enter this debate."
I have 2500+ records, I'd have 7,500 but I gave or threw 5000 away a few years back. I have setup over 200 analog systems and have owned excellent analog rigs. (SOTA, Star Saphire, Saphire, Cosmos, VPI HW-19IV, ET2, SME, Premiere, Wheaton, Grado, Micro Benz, Monster, Sumiko, Clear Audio, Roksan, EAR, Audio Research, Audible Illusions, Mod Squad, Motif Linn, Van den hul, Ortofon, Technics.
I know exactly what you're talking about, and so do I. So does Harvard University School of Medicine and Bell Labs.
I still don't know what speakers you are using. Very important. As important as my ownership of analog from pre-1982.
Hopefully my resume measures up, to qualify me for this continuing debate.
+ of course many of them are from before 1982. And all of my Cd's are from after 1983. :)
PS: On the Cd transport comment, on a whole there were more choices for High End transports a missing nuance to my comment and the basis. Why is there no serious competition for the VRDS? This is a problem don't you think? Thanks for the correction
Have a good one. |
No,
You may have a transport problem. I use my Genesis digital lens to ferret out transports with clock problems.
I'm waiting for an affordable PC based tester so I can save results and take my laptop to test systems away from home.
Now if you're talking about the sustain of an electric guitar or decay of say the plucked strings (unplugged).
Surround can help here but I don't want drivel on about something unrelated. So you can describe "too fast" a little more succinctly based on what i've said above.
Which track of which recording, maybe I have it here. |
Adhoc,
"And for many other people too."
No for a precious few. 2000-3000 is not many people, and the number is shrinking everyday.
What's funny is I probably have more records than you do, analog's been around for my entire life and I think I understand it very well.
What is really high end analogic gear? How much do I have to spend in your opinion to get good sound from a used record? Tell me I'm interested in what you think it takes.
BTW; how many records do you own? |
Jkalman,
excellent point, keep in mind redbook CD has a non linear application of bits, which favors compressed popular SONY music formats. It is why I make sure to state 24 bit digital.
24 bits suffers none of the ills of redbook. many digital processing units of higher quality now process above 40 bits. So sine wave capable digital is.
We need to move away from redbook Cd as the "digital" source, but when the people most concerned about sound quality in the home want to champion $5K+ analog systems and that vocal minority is in key media positions professing hanging on to LP's and buying used collections of mistreated vinyl as a gateway to musical glory.....the hobby will not move forward.
the heel dragging needs to stop, I'm tired of no serious R&D on multichannel systems and software, because audiophiles think two channels and LP's are superior.
Armed with a Meridian processor and some good speakers, I could put any of these two channel systems in the shed for good. Subjectivity? That's what they all say before they get the lesson.
You can always tell when someone is clueless about surround and high quality digital....they say it wasn't any good, then you ask them "why they didin't make it sound the way they wanted?" They don't even know what that means and you get dismissed. I guess if you're not changing power cords or adding Shakti stones, they don't undertsand.
well that's been my experience till now...good point jk |
