2. digital
  3. 158378-116029

to my ears digital audio does not sound natural? something is wrong!

lf Digital audio is man made how can I expect the brain to recognize it as natural sounding?

lf I re-encode digital audio with the earths natural frequencies will the brain now recognize it as a natural source allowing the digital audio to harmonize with my brain creating an entirely new listening experience?

This might sound crazy however it sounds perfectly logical to me so i went to the park at 3am to record the frequencies of nature using the built in mic on my cheap mp3 player in wav 16/44 and uploaded the wav file to my pc and while the file from the park was playing on my windows media player i made a simple copy of a commercial digital album flac 16/44 on my desktop and here are the results using the same audio source.

commercial release flac 16/44 http://u.pc.cd/PmXctalK

commercial release  with earth frequencies http://u.pc.cd/7d7

lt may be the placebo effect and i'm hearing what i want to hear however i think the music is now in harmony with my ears?

guitarsam
robert_1
44 posts
 
I have digital and analog  front ends, they both sound great to me "depending" on how good the recording was made. The only difference to me is that on the digital front system with certain recordings after a while I get tired. It's like pass certain time My brain cannot take it anymore.  

With  my analog system, it doesn't matter how bad the recording is I can take it, but I'm not enjoying it as it should be.

rtorchia's avatar
rtorchia
132 posts
 
I think the prejudice against digital is driven by boomers and the people they influence who have great nostalgia of their LPs and tube equipment. Absolutely that stuff was great and a lot of fun to meddle with, and much of it sounds fantastic. I use as my main system the Exogal Comet/Ion system and either stream or play lossless files of a MacBook Pro, and the sound is amazing. The small footprint, simplicity, and convenience of the digital format is very agreeable to me. But I also have a vintage secondary system on which I run my turntable that I enjoy greatly. I believe I am getting the best of two worlds, but digital is superior to me. 
sdrsdrsdr
196 posts
 
I find we all hear different and to me digital audio isn’t for me. But I understand that for many it is and that shouldn’t be argued. I’d prefer it was. It would make things easier. 

I use these examples: 
Florescent  lightening doesn’t bother me but for others it does. Even with the digital ballasts many people still see  light flicker. I don’t.

DLP projectors don’t bother me either like they do for some people.


LED lighting I don’t like, I just see blue and I find it too directional.  But many people love it.

Digital audio for me is like fluorescent lighting is for other people. Sorry to the digital crowd but that’s how it affects me. We all experience our hearing and visual senses differently and that is ok to acknowledge that. 
robert_1
44 posts
 
@sdrsdrsdr: exactly. 
johnnyotto
21 posts
 
It's not only dependent on the equipment playing back the recording, but it's dependent on the quality of the recording itself.  As more and more recordings are being produced in home recording studios, the quality of recordings is generally suffering.  To make a good recording, it takes a combination of technical expertise, artistic skill, and an understanding of the genre of music and what is most suitable for that genre/style.
More to discover