Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

I like your part about tweaking the cartridge and about how subtle changes in tightening the mounting bolts affects the sound.

That implies to me how much you can veer one way or the other from accuracy with just a few twists of the wrist.
How will you know you when have it perfect?

You won't.

You weren't there to hear the sound of Bob's harmonica to know what it sounded like before the recording started.

Then again let's talk about the harmonica's you both own.
Even if they are the identical brand, and age of manufacture, they won't have been played the same so the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.You will both blow it differently.
Also is your living room where you listen to music identical to the recording studio?

Not likely, so your room will introduce colourations different from the recording studio.

How can you make statements like you make and say that your system makes Bob Dylan's harmonica sound just as real as when you play your harmonica?

I'll bet even if you used the same recording gear as Dylan used the two would sound different.

And this is the gist of the debate.

On a superior system YOU should be able to hear the differences.
To not hear the differences means the system isn't capable of the levle of resolution and realism need to distinguish between so many disparities.

This isn't meant to say your system sucks,it's just that this is the misguided thinking of most audiophiles.Because they like their systems and it sounds to them like the real thing,never having heard the real thing in real time in a real space identical to their own.

It's the concept some of us are trying to convey in this thread that some folks find hard to grasp or just don't want to believe.

Yes we would all like to think that we have assembled the most realistic system, and pat ourselves on the back and say "we're here, it's finished", alas, some of us know we are still very far away, and I don't think I'll live to see or hear the day when music or video is really duplicated in the confines of my personal space.

To put things into perspective,years ago I was quite pleased with my tv, and my stereo.All class A rated, top shelf.
I thought you couldn't get any better than this.
If everyone felt the same way as I did, then we would still be using all the same technology and systems today,
(some folks do).

Time passes and things did get much better.

As a play around guitar player with a variety of them I would say that on my $7,000 system optimized for guitars and stringed instruments it never has fooled me into sounding like it is the real thing(acoustics in real time and space). However the real thing is very elusive, never sounds the 100% the same twice maybe 95-98??, maybe 99 sometimes if your a pro. But I do find that I can almost recreate the real thing in my head with my system if all the stars are lined up. I can do it with digital and with analog. I think vertigo has conveyed himself very well, it is nice to discuss a topic like this because we hope that things will continue to improve and to know where to look when they do. It will be a better day in music reproduction when we can sit in our listening rooms and hear almost the real thing. Well played non amplified music is glorious. But I have a hard time seeing in the near future either format being real close to the real thing. I am still hoping though.

"I am still hoping though.”

Me too Marqmike. After all, do we really have to recreate the entire output of a symphony orchestra in all its grandeur and subtlety? Or just, what I suspect, is the more achievable objective of reproducing what the human ear can detect.

Hi Vertigo - I have been away from the computer for a few days. I do apologize for the pity comment. That was indeed going much too far.

I have been thinking about this subject while away from the forum the last couple of days, and I did come up with one example where there would not be a significant difference between live and recorded music, and this would be purely electronic, or synthesized music. However, some would say that this example does not even count, because in this case, there technically is no real live "performance," you are hearing a recording - even in a recital hall the piece is played over the sound system, not "performed". There was in fact a thread here in which this was discussed a couple of years ago, I think, though there the question was whether or not such an event constituted a performance.

However, in every other case I could possibly think of, there is a very significant difference between the sound of a live and recorded performance. Electric guitars, for example, have an acoustic element to them. There are a great many very subtle aspects of timbre in particular that are not picked up by a recording, no matter how well it is done and how good the system is that is playing it back. Or as Frogman has mentioned in another thread, there is an energy associated with time and rhythm that is not only physically felt but also perceived by the ear (or perhaps more accurately, the brain) that does not quite translate fully to a recording.

Quite honestly, I have never known a single individual who could not tell the difference between a live performance and a recording, even just a single human speaking voice, again even assuming your suggested experiment where you are in the same room and the exact same distance from the speakers as you are from the performer. I'm not talking about hearing a distant television set, say in another far off room, and not being able to tell if that is real or not. I have absolutely no doubt that you and anyone else could do your experiment with a person's voice which you had never heard before, and you would very easily, in fact instantly, be able to tell the difference blindfolded or however else you wanted to make the test.

Hi guys...

RE***I like your part about tweaking the cartridge and about how subtle changes in tightening the mounting bolts affects the sound.

That implies to me how much you can veer one way or the other from accuracy with just a few twists of the wrist.
How will you know you when have it perfect?

You won't.***

How will i know? Honestly?

I just want to say that what is happening in regard to nirvana unplugged, norah jones, bob dylan and his harmonica and how it sounds can never be articulated through words. (for good or bad) So in light of that ...as sincere as we all may be, ultimately our discussion to some degree is an exercise in futility. Futility in that, we will "argue" because we are in ignorance of where each person is coming from. All i wish to say is that these rare tracks and concert dvd's thrill me! I am thrilled and absolutely satisfied. With the other recordings, i have the pleasure to try and progress and to try to reel in their sound to a place that brings me great pleasure. It is a work in progress.

For one. I don't expect studio to sound live. I don't want them too! Most studio recordings do not have that goal!!! And we need to note this and forget about trying to deconstruct what the producer did and foolishly try to make it sound live! You wouldn't want it too ...is my point!

More heresy!...

I very much like ...."produced album's" and don't want live!!!!or even a live show...

Why?

Because a producer and the studio are like an extra member of the band! Bringing his vision and his talent to the table. Ultimately a record is a collaboration between artist and the studio and the producer...and that's a great thing. I like a polished sound that is given a certain vision/direction.

What would joy division's album's be without the industrial/space rock sound effects added by their producer. He took those album's to another level!!! Thank God for studio's and producers and manipulated live sounds!

What would the joshua tree be without daniel lanois and brian eno? Just another bare bones live recording.(Yawn)(well, it still might be ok but just different)

Heresy!

Live...Recorded...its all good!...

But back to how will i know when the harmonica is perfect...

Ultimately...you are right...i won't know. But...I do know that bob is a fan of the humble "marine band" harmonica and if i blow through my own marine band harmonica's i can make a comparison between how IT sounds "live" and how HIS marine band harmonica is reproduced by my stereo. If those two sound close to identical...I think that's progress!(and they do sound close to identical!(not all things but this is one of)...the rest of the splitting of hairs doesn't matter. (to me anyways.) This is more than sufficient.

Re***Then again let's talk about the harmonica's you both own.
Even if they are the identical brand, and age of manufacture, they won't have been played the same so the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.You will both blow it differently.
Also is your living room where you listen to music identical to the recording studio?***

I don't know if the room is the same but a harmonica is an instrument that pushes very little air and since it pushes very little air, how it interfaces with the room is probably negligable. If it was an extremely live room (which if you listen to the recording is doubtful) it might produce alot of "flutter and echo" but instead it seems to come out of a "quite dead" room and what is recorded seems to be taken very close to the harmonica so much so that the room doesn't have a chance to contribute anything before the track is laid down. Even if there is some room effect you are getting what seems to be a very immediate direct (closely mic'd) stripped down recording of the harmonica.

re***the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.*** usually new strings and harmonica's are taken into the recording studio so instruments sound fresh and alive. Nobody goes into studio with a tired harmonica and tired strings. My harmonica is fresh too.

Am i missing something but isn't the bottom line this...that what is emanating from the speakers and what i hear from my live harmonica are negligible? (qualifier: the harmonica in my mouth has a different directional point of view since it is inches from my ears.)(but the timbres are negligible)(believe it or not... i don't care)

(now if i could only get nirvana "bleach"! to sound sensational!)(i am....working on it!)(check back in 2 years)(smile)

I just upgraded from 2 vh audio flavour 4 cables, to 2 airsine pc cords. And i switched some cables around. The differences have to be carefully assessed. I might now have lost the magic of the parameters i was getting with nirvana unplugged...it might now sound..."reproduced" which gets at what i am failing but trying to express..."great sound is hard work and a bit of "luck" and..."there is no clearly defined understanding of how or where you'll find ..."synergy""...You just have to find it... and find it with your ears...

This means that...expensive doesn't necessarily equal good. (good news for those with less) Nor does it mean that...VERY expensive will equal good. I'm skeptical that cheap can equal superlative...but tinkering with good products, plus some know how, plus some hard work, plus some luck, plus some tweaking, Plus learning from some failures leads to good sound.

RE***On a superior system YOU should be able to hear the differences.****

Still, how would you know since even if you have a "superior system" you are ignorant of the parameters that you mention.Therefore you still have no standard to measure against. Ultimately, we are all sculpting a sound that pleases relative to our understanding of what real timbres sound like and that is progressive and that's good enough!

On a funny note...there is a joke..."My system is so good/reference..it shows up 95 percent of my catalog as unlistenable!!!"(smile)

RE***I think vertigo has conveyed himself very well***

Thanks....

There's some things my system lacks...it doesn't play low enough (yet...)and at present i am trying to dial in my interconnect/pc/receptacle combo with the rest of the system. I am trying to dial in the cables by trying them in different places/combo's so that things sound identical to real instruments. It might take some time but the failures are as important as the successes.

Brilliant sound might be a cable change away and it is unpredictable, the only way to get that last fine nuance that you want , that imitates live sparse recordings/timbres ...is to experiment and listen. With every change ...other areas might need re-addressing to accommodate that change.

I have all my gear sitting suspended above slate with certain footers. I recently asked my friend to cut me some mdf which i plan to marry with the slate. Either alone not being as good as the combo glued together is my logic. Once i make this change all other parameters (in my world) need to be re tweaked to accommodate this change since the change is interfacing with the rest of what is going on in the system. Maybe nothing will need to be changed but maybe it will. It is my hope that the slate/mdf combo will neither be too dead or ring too much but will be "just right"(that is my hope)...and bring greater resolution, clarity, dynamics and timbral fidelity.

I don't expect my stereo to sound like 'live'(except if its playing something back RECORDED live(and recorded ...WELL! (at that).

I do want my stereo to reproduce timbres well and dynamics well. I expect it to play well recorded live music back well, poorly recorded music back poorly and "studio' recorded music back well too but i realize the limitations of studio (relative to live)(not better or worse, just a different animal) and expect no more or less than what the producers intentions were but i or no one, i think ...should mistakenly expect studio to be 'made' to become...live? That is a mistake, unfair and unreasonable and a category error. Studio is good and so are live recordings, i don't think people should discriminate between the two but should enjoy each for what they are and are not.

.