AudioAficionado.org  

Go Back   AudioAficionado.org > The Lounge > General Audio Discussion

General Audio Discussion All other Audio Q & A

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-22-2013, 10:57 AM
rbbert rbbert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 220
Default

The last sentence of the article is key to me; the biggest problem with nearly all recordings today isn't the medium, it's the mastering (and I include things like mic placement, etc in the term "mastering")
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-22-2013, 11:09 AM
Rayooo's Avatar
Rayooo Rayooo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Northeast US
Posts: 1,160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbbert View Post
The last sentence of the article is key to me; the biggest problem with nearly all recordings today isn't the medium, it's the mastering (and I include things like mic placement, etc in the term "mastering")
+1
__________________
J-River MC 19 on custom Win7 PC. USB - Meitner MA 1. Conrad Johnson GAT. Conrad Johnson ART Monos. Magnepan 20.7. Pro-Studio/WBT Interconnects. Moon Audio Black Dragon Speaker Cable. Furman P2400-IT.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-24-2013, 09:03 PM
PHC1 PHC1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pa
Posts: 19,524
Default

There is more to it than strictly digital vs analog. I believe either media can sound "musical" and "warm" and "natural" to the ear, just depends on the quality of the recording and mastering process. I have been convinced that digital is not all to blame by the XRCDs. Listening to many of my XRCDs is pure pleasure and considering the mastering process and source of the recording it now makes sense to me that digital is not all to blame.

Last edited by PHC1; 03-24-2013 at 09:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-25-2013, 10:53 AM
rob.hughes rob.hughes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHC1 View Post
There is more to it than strictly digital vs analog. I believe either media can sound "musical" and "warm" and "natural" to the ear, just depends on the quality of the recording and mastering process. I have been convinced that digital is not all to blame by the XRCDs. Listening to many of my XRCDs is pure pleasure and considering the mastering process and source of the recording it now makes sense to me that digital is not all to blame.
I agree with this. I have CDs I enjoy. But CDs I enjoy are fewer and farther between than purely analog sources. So in addition to the overall quality of the recording/engineering and mastering process, the playback system is also important. And in my experience, "good" sounding analog is a lot less expensive than "good" digital. And by the same token, really stellar analog is more expensive than really stellar digital, or at least I'm not aware of any 200K+ CD transport/DAC combinations.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-25-2013, 11:05 AM
o0OBillO0o o0OBillO0o is offline
Rebellious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Massachusetts!
Posts: 5,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob.hughes View Post
I agree with this. I have CDs I enjoy. But CDs I enjoy are fewer and farther between than purely analog sources. So in addition to the overall quality of the recording/engineering and mastering process, the playback system is also important. And in my experience, "good" sounding analog is a lot less expensive than "good" digital. And by the same token, really stellar analog is more expensive than really stellar digital, or at least I'm not aware of any 200K+ CD transport/DAC combinations.



Those last two sentences, with the use of "good" and "stellar" = highly debatable.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-25-2013, 06:17 PM
W9TR's Avatar
W9TR W9TR is offline
Senior Member

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Neutral Zone
Posts: 3,327
Default

Really interesting discussion. I love the distortion and especially the modulation noise that classic reel-to-reel machines add to the sound, just like I love the distortion and background noise vinyl records bring to the table. Maybe they make up for things lost elsewhere in the chain. Dunno. I love the sound of well mastered high bitrate large bit depth files bring to the table. Different for sure, but awesome nonetheless.

Who's to say what's right, when all three, when they're done well, sound so good?

Tom
__________________
Main System:
Amati Futura Mains
Amati Homage VOX Center,
Proac Response 1sc Rears,
Three MC2301's for L,C,R
MC 602 for the rears
C 1100, MX 151, MCD 1100, MR 80
Nottingham Dais with Sumiko Palo Santos Presentation
SurfacePro 3, JRiver, WW Starlight Platinum USB, Schiit Yggdrasil, Benchmark DAC3 HGC

MX 151, OppO BDP-95, JVC RS-500 DILA projector, 106" diagonal Stewart Luxus Screenwall Deluxe with Studiotek 130 G3 material.

Lake House:
Ohm F, MC 275V, C2300, MR 77, Rega P3

OnDeck:
McIntosh MAC 4300v
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-25-2013, 06:22 PM
W9TR's Avatar
W9TR W9TR is offline
Senior Member

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Neutral Zone
Posts: 3,327
Default

Forgot to mention - his examples prove the author of the article does not understand the two fundamental processes at work in digital audio - sampling and quantization. That makes the rest of the article 'ahem' questionable.
__________________
Main System:
Amati Futura Mains
Amati Homage VOX Center,
Proac Response 1sc Rears,
Three MC2301's for L,C,R
MC 602 for the rears
C 1100, MX 151, MCD 1100, MR 80
Nottingham Dais with Sumiko Palo Santos Presentation
SurfacePro 3, JRiver, WW Starlight Platinum USB, Schiit Yggdrasil, Benchmark DAC3 HGC

MX 151, OppO BDP-95, JVC RS-500 DILA projector, 106" diagonal Stewart Luxus Screenwall Deluxe with Studiotek 130 G3 material.

Lake House:
Ohm F, MC 275V, C2300, MR 77, Rega P3

OnDeck:
McIntosh MAC 4300v

Last edited by W9TR; 03-25-2013 at 06:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-25-2013, 07:36 PM
rob.hughes rob.hughes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o View Post
Those last two sentences, with the use of "good" and "stellar" = highly debatable.
In my experience, anything related to audio is "highly debatable". I argue with my 20-something daughters over whether the 128k bitrate MP3s over their "they came with the ipod" earbuds actually sound as good as my set up. They actually claim their stuff sounds better. And despite one of them interning as a doctor at a decent teaching hospital and the other being a manager with a national company, I still can't help but feel that I failed as a father. Maybe not in that "their method of earning a living involves a chrome-plated pole and a lot of dollar bills" level of failure, but still, it's failure.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-25-2013, 08:56 PM
Dom_P's Avatar
Dom_P Dom_P is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 467
Default

What's actually kind of funny is that old laserdiscs were analog. And contained analog video as well as analog and digital audio sound tracks.

In hind sight maybe that was the future.

As I understand it, the pits and lands on a disc don't need to be constant size as the are on a digital CD (in this case used to the define ones and zeros). An analog signal can actually be encoded on the disc using variable sized pits and lands arranged in linear sequence. A laser can then pick then pickup that analog signal with no D/A conversion required. Pretty much like a turntable, but without the needle and associated wear, dust, static, etc. issues.

EDIT: a little further research on Wikipedia turned up this.


"An earlier analog optical disc recorded in 1935 for Licht-Tone Orgel (sampling organ)"
__________________
2 Channel Preamp: McIntosh C2300
AV Preamp/Processor: McIntosh MX150
Amps: McIntosh MC302 and MC303
Projector: Sony VPL-HW55ES
Speakers: Golden Ear Triton 2s, SuperSat 50 and SuperSat 3s
Digital Sources: Lumin A1, Oppo BDP-105
Speaker Cables: WW Oasis 6 (F/C), WW Stream (Surround)
interconnects: WW Silver Eclipse 6 XLR, Silver Starlight 6 USB, WW Ultraviolet HDMI

Last edited by Dom_P; 03-25-2013 at 09:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-17-2013, 01:25 PM
redhulk redhulk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3
Default

Sampling is lossless, quantization is not. Nature has chosen 4-bit dna quantization over misty analog copying though for the reproduction of life, so I think that 24-bit is sort of overkill for music reproduction..

Last edited by redhulk; 06-17-2013 at 06:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Audioaficionado.org tested by Norton Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:35 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©Copyright 2009-2019 AudioAficionado.org.Privately owned, All Rights Reserved.
Audio Aficionado Sponsors
AudioAficionado Subscriber
AudioAficionado Subscriber
Inspire By Dennis Had
Inspire By Dennis Had
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Wyred4Sound
Wyred4Sound
Dragonfire Acoustics
Dragonfire Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
Esoteric
Esoteric
AC Infinity
AC Infinity
JL Audio
JL Audio
Acoustic Sciences Corportation
Acoustic Sciences Corportation
Legend Audio & Video
Legend Audio & Video
Audio by E
Audio by E
Canton
Canton
Bryston
Bryston
WireWorld Cables
WireWorld Cables
Stillpoints
Stillpoints
Bricasti Design
Bricasti Design
Furutech
Furutech
Shunyata Research
Shunyata Research
Accuphase
Accuphase