The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 12th May 2014
  #4861
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
My point is that eliminating dozens of resamplings that wouldn't be necessary at a higher sample rate could make a higher sample rate end product sound better. Comparing just a single sample rate conversion out of context is comparing apples to oranges in the real world because distortion accumulates.
YES. This is a huge point about digital in general. Most of what I've been doing over the last couple years, and the main edge I've had in plugins, is in doing the algorithmic things I need to do while touching the digital data as lightly as possible. This extends to doing heavy processing to get a generalized output and then throwing that away and applying an approximation to the input data with one add…

You cannot turn your back on digital, it goes flat and soulless VERY easily and quickly, and some of the most elaborate efforts to apply 'analog modeling' are the worst offenders. Bob is totally, 100% right here and it's a real concern that is affecting nearly everything you hear coming off a DAW.

And YES, going through multiple stages of a 'perfectly transparent to the ear' process can and does build up to produce unwanted results, and one of the nastiest build-ups is various rounding errors, which is why I started 'dithering' (really noise shaping) my 64 bit internal word lengths to 32 bit. There is absolutely no chance anything could 'hear' 32 bit floating point noise floor, it's outrageously beyond the Brownian motion of the air. But keep reducing to 32 bit over and over in different ways a million times and eventually you will lose data integrity in a way that can be noticed by the ear. And no one specific operation will have done that, either, and you could ABX test all the pieces of the puzzle until you're blue in the face. And it wouldn't matter.

One caveat: if you're reducing to a state (such as 16 bit 44.1K) that's arguably outside the limits of the human ear, BUT it's coarsely quantized enough that your process will always revert to the same exact form each time you reduce it, you're effectively skipping back to the beginning of the process and it won't continue to degrade. If you did it to 32 bit floating point that's fine-grained enough to be able to pick up degradations each iteration, and THAT would decay worse and worse as you did tons of iterations. The math has to be precise enough to pick up and maintain the bit-rot you can't individually hear, for it to add up. (digital is tricky that way)
Old 12th May 2014
  #4862
Gear Head
 

I believe you. Whether I want it or not, increasingly 24/96 music is coming my way, and I had to change my media player because its SRC (both up and down) was not good. Previously, I thought it was just maths, and how could it be that far wrong? It was me that was that far wrong.

But some people are still making multiple generation copies on cassette tapes (not yet entirely dead), where anybody can hear how bad the third is, and probably some people can hear the difference in the first copy.
Old 12th May 2014
  #4863
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
"Transparent" only means one pass can't be heard because the distortion is so low. Every conversion expands the bit rate which then needs to be dithered and truncated to something that can be handed off or written to a file. The numbers have in fact been changed by every single signal processing task. If you repeat the process enough times, I can assure you the distortion and, hopefully, dither eventually accumulates to the point of audibility.
But I am talking about copying an analog signal each time. If the program material goes through A/D and D/A and there is zero audible distortion added, why would audible distortion ever be added during subsequent copying?
Old 12th May 2014
  #4864
Lives for gear
 
Timothy Lawler's Avatar
 

Yesterday I was out tandem canoeing on Lake Union in Seattle.. sparkling water, sunny sky, beautiful woman sitting in front... yet I kept thinking about how great this thread is. WTF?

Seriously, thanks. There are some technical posts here that read like audio poetry.

A lot to study here.
Old 12th May 2014
  #4865
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
My point is that eliminating dozens of resamplings that wouldn't be necessary at a higher sample rate could make a higher sample rate end product sound better. Comparing just a single sample rate conversion out of context is comparing apples to oranges in the real world because distortion accumulates.
But it would still all come down to the final conversion to 44.1, IF that can be done transparently. And then the difference between the 44.1 and 96k end product could be blind tested to determine if they do sound different, as you're suggesting. If a project is recorded, mixed, and mastered at 96k it still always comes down to whether the end user can tell the difference between the 44.1 and 96k end product made from that 96k master.

The testers have shown it is possible the end product could sound different, because they found a possible Achilles heel in the way things are generally done, that has nothing to do with whether 96k sounds different than 44.1k. And this, all based on one final downsample.

I think they knew this going in, that they probably already blind tested the Pyramix SRC themselves, and felt confident the testers could hear the same thing. As I said, they were trying to make the case for the superiority of "hi-res" 96k end product, and the only way they did that really is by using this one final downsample.
Old 12th May 2014
  #4866
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

How transparent a final down-sample is depends entirely on how much distortion has already accumulated. There is a point when the sound quality quite simply falls apart becoming crunchy. Generalizations about this stuff are meaningless in real world application.

I'm convinced from my own recordings from microphones that 96k x 24 bits properly dithered sounds better than recording at 44.1 even after a final 44.1 down-convert although not as good as leaving it at 96. My experience is also that the added distortion from up sampling from 44.1 is a real craps shoot benefit wise.
Old 12th May 2014
  #4867
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post

I'm convinced from my own recordings from microphones that 96k x 24 bits properly dithered sounds better than recording at 44.1 even after a final 44.1 down-convert although not as good as leaving it at 96.
I fully agree, though I find the difference small, not deal breaking for sure. Curious though, with so many people in this discussion saying I (or anybody) cannot make that claim without going though a vigorous testing regimen to confirm it, doesn't that also throw a monkey wrench in everything else we think we know about audio as well?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
My experience is also that the added distortion from up sampling from 44.1 is a real craps shoot benefit wise.
I've also been wondering about this as well, what advantage could there ever be to up sampling, other than possibly applying DSP at the higher rates? For simply playing back at a higher rate than the actual file and can't see any way this could be an improvement.
Old 12th May 2014
  #4868
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by walter88 View Post
The testers have shown it is possible the end product could sound different, because they found a possible Achilles heel in the way things are generally done, that has nothing to do with whether 96k sounds different than 44.1k. And this, all based on one final downsample.

I think they knew this going in, that they probably already blind tested the Pyramix SRC themselves, and felt confident the testers could hear the same thing. As I said, they were trying to make the case for the superiority of "hi-res" 96k end product, and the only way they did that really is by using this one final downsample.
Walter could you elaborate on this? Where does Pyramix enter the picture?

Looking at a SRC Comparisons comparison between r8brain (the SRC used in the video I posted a few pages back) and Pyramix 6.2.3 the r8brain converter clearly beats it. There is a LOT of ripple in the pass band compared to most other sample rate converters.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4869
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
There is a LOT of ripple in the pass band compared to most other sample rate converters.
Ripple in the passband can equate to audible pre-echo, as it turns out.

And of course the ripple can be audible as well, depending on how big it is.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4870
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
If you were around during net.audio times (that's before rec.audio.*) you would know that somebody did, in a blind test, 9/10 and then 8/10 results in a very primitive, not so sensitive ABX test between a Maggotbox (err, Magnavox, jj, be nice) CD player and a CDP 101. In a noisy room, in fact.

I know, the person was me.

The player turned out to have a bad design for rounding at low levels built into its 4x oversampling convertor.

Whoopsie. There went your your jitter argument.

Jitter did, however, cause massive skewing of the first MPEG-Audio test, thanks to a pathetic PLL in a "professional SPDIF DAC". AES/EBU and SPDIF are really not the nicest protocols in the world, and there's not really any excuse, the phone company (who I used to work for, Bell Labs, remember them, Acoustics Research and all that?) knew how to design better digital protocols in 1960.

I was referring to the general consensus that CD players with equivalent-quality analog stages sounded the same. At the time I read about the events I cited, I looked into the story to see if it was true and found a number of examples of it happening. And yes, I do seem to remember that those examples were from old email lists, although I don't recall which ones.

In any event, the reason I brought up the subject was for the same reason I originally even read about the matter in the first place -- science zealots acting as if current known science was the be-all, end-all of everything. Some things obviously never change.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4871
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
But that's the thing. It's easy to cite the limits of science and then follow with some arbitrary conclusion: "science doesn't know everything, therefore"

-- digital audio could be flawed, or
-- ultrasonic perception could be a factor, or
-- we don't know enough about human hearing to make definitive claims

etc.

But using that formula, any possible conclusion is equally valid: "Science doesn't know everything, therefore"

-- microscopic aliens could be orbiting Jupiter, or
-- elephants could be telekinetic, or
-- one out of every billion humans is immortal

etc.

Pointing out that science doesn't know everything is not an argument; it is meaningless at best, and completely dismissive of everything we do know, at worst.

As for vinyl's small resurgence and the supposed enormous disconnect lost upon the science "zealots", well, I think we can fairly call the recent vinyl thing a sociological phenomenon. The technical merits or otherwise of vinyl sound reproduction, however, is best kept in the domain of science.

Then I'm sure you'll love this list of studios and engineers:

Shunyata Research - Professional Endorsements, page 1

what with their blatant disregard for scientific orthodoxy, and the gall to make decisions based upon what they hear. Those Jupiter microscopic alien-loving heretics.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4872
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
This is just the old creationist meme aimed at science in another field, basically, it's called the "argument from ignorance", that attempts to enforce a false dichotomy that goes "since we don't know everything, we don't know anything".
LOL, well then THANK GOD we live in a capitalistic society where Neil Young is free to bring Pono to market, and the market is free to determine what value it hears in it.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4873
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
It's also kind of amazing that people do not recognize bad equipment any longer. It used to be that funny stuff automatically caused people to check their equipment.

Now some of them complain about "digital audio" because people who don't understand it have taught them a whole load of mystical bull poop.
There's so many people now buying vinyl that record players and LPs can be bought at TARGET, but you're claiming that's only happening because people have been taught "a whole load of mystical bull poop" about digital? Really? I suspect that regardless of how much the idea might disagree with your orthodoxy, they're doing it because of what they hear, and that they don't like what they hear from "digital audio".
Old 13th May 2014
  #4874
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Walter could you elaborate on this? Where does Pyramix enter the picture?

Looking at a SRC Comparisons comparison between r8brain (the SRC used in the video I posted a few pages back) and Pyramix 6.2.3 the r8brain converter clearly beats it. There is a LOT of ripple in the pass band compared to most other sample rate converters.
Thanks doom64, just watched the video you referenced. Interesting stuff, and especially interesting that he's looking at an album that has different mastering treatments on CD and HD Tracks.

Pyramix SRC is what the authors of the test I've been talking about (for probably too long now) chose as an example of a standard tool incorporated in the DAW used by many successful mastering studios. I realize it doesn't look that great at infinitewav, and brought that up in the original test thread:
sample rate discrimination

The testers point though, and the relevance to Pono's claims, is that there is product out there where there are 96k files available, and CD, where because of the methods used in file creation, might be differentiated reliably in blind testing. Maybe Neil Young is only listening to 192 vs CD made with a not so great downsampler. It's just a variable to consider. There are probably 100 different SRCs at infinitewav, and some of them look a lot worse than Pyramix.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4875
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
There's so many people now buying vinyl that record players and LPs can be bought at TARGET, but you're claiming that's only happening because people have been taught "a whole load of mystical bull poop" about digital? Really? I suspect that regardless of how much the idea might disagree with your orthodoxy, they're doing it because of what they hear, and that they don't like what they hear from "digital audio".
They are doing it because they have now learned "a whole load of mystical bull poop" about vinyl, not because of what they hear. In fact, some of the stuff I am hearing about "warm, natural sound" makes me think that the shellac-playing radiogram I grew up with in the 50s must have been audiophile.

It wasn't.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4876
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom View Post
They are doing it because they have now learned "a whole load of mystical bull poop" about vinyl, not because of what they hear. In fact, some of the stuff I am hearing about "warm, natural sound" makes me think that the shellac-playing radiogram I grew up with in the 50s must have been audiophile.

It wasn't.
What chaps like you seem to always disregard is that 'audiophile' or 'correct' or 'accurate' is one thing, and feeling is another. It FEELS different to hear a vinyl record, and people like the feeling, in complete disregard whether it is 'accurate' or 'audiophile'. The sound of it, complete with crackles, etc, sets the scene in a way that emotion passes well from it to a human. Music generally wanting to communicate emotion, this can be a plus.

People don't feel the love so much with digital however, regardless how accurate or hifi it is technically. Because even at its best digital hasn't got as much love in it. At best it doesn't take love away. Vinyl ADDS love. I am sure you'll find a way to make me look like a dreaming lunatic based on this post, but if you take it to heart and ponder on it for a bit instead you may gather more of an understanding why people still bother with vinyl. But then you might not.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4877
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
LOL, well then THANK GOD we live in a capitalistic society where Neil Young is free to bring Pono to market, and the market is free to determine what value it hears in it.
So you quote somebody out of context and pick a fight. Right. I get your game.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4878
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
There's so many people now buying vinyl that record players and LPs can be bought at TARGET, but you're claiming that's only happening because people have been taught "a whole load of mystical bull poop" about digital? Really? I suspect that regardless of how much the idea might disagree with your orthodoxy, they're doing it because of what they hear, and that they don't like what they hear from "digital audio".
Now you've just lied outright about what I said, and then started to attack me based on your lie.

Perhaps you should go read what I've actually written about vinyl before you tell any more lies?
Old 13th May 2014
  #4879
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Now you've just lied outright about what I said, and then started to attack me based on your lie.

Perhaps you should go read what I've actually written about vinyl before you tell any more lies?
My admiration for your stamina grows, JJ. Now to quickly pull back out and not get involved again......
Old 13th May 2014
  #4880
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
What chaps like you seem to always disregard is that 'audiophile' or 'correct' or 'accurate' is one thing, and feeling is another. It FEELS different to hear a vinyl record, and people like the feeling, in complete disregard whether it is 'accurate' or 'audiophile'. The sound of it, complete with crackles, etc, sets the scene in a way that emotion passes well from it to a human. Music generally wanting to communicate emotion, this can be a plus.
Add to that some of the distortions that create an exaggerated perceived dynamic range, a broader soundstage, and so on, and you have something that might be preferred. Accuracy is not the issue here, preference is, and preference isn't to be argued unless somebody is claiming their preference should be universal.

It does create the thought that one might write an LP simulator. Interestingly, if one does, one needs to oversample by 4 to make it work properly.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4881
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Add to that some of the distortions that create an exaggerated perceived dynamic range, a broader soundstage, and so on, and you have something that might be preferred. Accuracy is not the issue here, preference is, and preference isn't to be argued unless somebody is claiming their preference should be universal.

It does create the thought that one might write an LP simulator. Interestingly, if one does, one needs to oversample by 4 to make it work properly.
As in, like a moving averages filter does? Interesting, although my non technical mind has no concept of what your statement actually means in reality.

In fact, in my view a vinyl sound copying algo wouldn't really be the future although I love the sound of vinyl. I am also quite happy for digital not to sound like it. But to instead somehow imbue digital with some character traits that are not based on total accuracy, but on a human perceiving it as sweet sounding. Coming from being close to accurate though, not going back to vinyl with its totally miles from accurate sound.

Still hoping the Pono thing might have a smidge of such a something about it.

Old 13th May 2014
  #4882
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
So you quote somebody out of context and pick a fight. Right. I get your game.
I brought your comment back into the context of this thread.

You seem fond of casting aspersions, but don't like it when they're returned.

Bullies are like that.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4883
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Now you've just lied outright about what I said, and then started to attack me based on your lie.

Perhaps you should go read what I've actually written about vinyl before you tell any more lies?
Your contempt for the people who've chimed in on this thread complaining about the sound of modern digital comes through loud and clear. What's funny is that there's a segment of the general public having many of the same complaints, and they've started voting against it with their dollars. While you might not have intended it, your comments just as easily apply to them.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4884
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
I brought your comment back into the context of this thread.
So, you lied about the context intentionally. And who's crying "bully" now?
Old 13th May 2014
  #4885
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Your contempt for the people who've chimed in on this thread complaining about the sound of modern digital comes through loud and clear. What's funny is that there's a segment of the general public having many of the same complaints, and they've started voting against it with their dollars. While you might not have intended it, your comments just as easily apply to them.
Actually, you make it clear you have no idea what I said about digital audio, and you're just making up more lies about what I've said.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4886
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
It does create the thought that one might write an LP simulator. Interestingly, if one does, one needs to oversample by 4 to make it work properly.
I wrote a 'what you have to do even to CUT a vinyl record' simulator namely, an acceleration limiter (now used in several related plugins) and elliptical EQ. And I did come up with a wordlength reducer that stores up error and tends to release it in tiny sputters and crackles, which of course I called Vinyl Dither as its noisefloor resembles surface noise. I think that's what became of 'Ten Nines', the DSD-imitation.

I do feel a lot of this is a sideshow, however. It's not that people crave surface noise all by itself, or narrowing of stereo bass. I think what people respond to in vinyl is this:

Highs don't try to extend beyond 20K though composite sounds can and will retain harmonics up there. This is because subtle highs will get scrubbed off the edges of the groove, but harmonics as part of a composite sound will make a big solid chunk of vinyl that can't be worn away. You hear this plainly with severely worn records: a type of presence seems to try to fight its way through the worn-ness, sometimes very distortedly.

The frequency balance of vinyl since RIAA equalization includes pre/deemphasis. As a result and as a result of preamp/amplifier design for vinyl, playback doesn't generally try to get a lot out of supersonic frequencies. There are exceptions associated with moving-coil pickups but it's known that this can lead to problems. 'dark' for vinyl playback means LOTS of roll-off up at 20K, and pretty much no noise up there. This draws attention to other frequency ranges, and tells an auditory 'story' about depth of field and that there is no apparent sound-making component nearer to your ears than the reproduced sound. Contrast this to digital pre-ring at 44.1K, where there is a phenomenon that tells the ear, 'very high frequency thing of some sort, therefore it must be SUPER CLOSE to you'

Also, the noise profile of vinyl is VERY frequency-dependent. Lots of it is rumble, surface noise is very sporadic to the extent that it acts like totally unrelated signal overlaid onto the signal. As a result, the zone where the ear is sensitive (a narrow band around 1-2K) has no specific distortion components going across it and no special concentration of noise, on the contrary. The noise profile of quantization noise and aliasing are the same: uniform broadband, and the artifacts can pop up anywhere, including right at 1-2K where they're easiest to hear.

This is why I have to be curious about the crazy averaging trick. I totally understand how non-optimal it is from a filter design standpoint: I've seen it produce a series of cancellation-like dips on white noise input, and I get that it will produce a steadily falling-off response and not be flat to 20K even. But from where I'm standing, people like vinyl in part because it too has a steadily falling-off response way up top, thanks to the RIAA de-emphasis and hiss control in analog circuitry and the assumption that you don't really get valid audio content at 20K out of vinyl anyway. And so typical consumer vinyl circuitry design doesn't attempt to throw 20K at you, it attempts to tone down crackle and hiss.

And people like the ease of not having quantization and aliasing splaying across 1.5K all over the place at very faint levels, and they like the ease of a top-end that is quiet and well-behaved. Accurate digital top is only as well-behaved as you make it be, and all our recording techniques have been pushing in the opposite direction for decades. It's no surprise to me that 'it sounds like vinyl! but better!' is the reaction to really high-quality clean digital in which the top end is firmly restricted from having ANY wacky ripple or peculiar behavior.

Gives me ideas, it does
Old 13th May 2014
  #4887
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Your contempt for the people who've chimed in on this thread complaining about the sound of modern digital comes through loud and clear. ...
It's OK to dislike "the sound of modern digital". (*)

It's not OK to attempt to justify this dislike with a seriously uninformed and flawed understanding of how digital (and the human auditory system) works.

From his posts, JJ appears to agree strongly with both statements.


(*) Which is actually the absence of any characteristic colouration of its own, unlike vinyl for example.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom View Post
They are doing it because they have now learned "a whole load of mystical bull poop" about vinyl, not because of what they hear. In fact, some of the stuff I am hearing about "warm, natural sound" makes me think that the shellac-playing radiogram I grew up with in the 50s must have been audiophile.

It wasn't.
Strawman. Perhaps some will prefer the sound of 'old vinyl' but the question in the context of Pono is whether vinyl on a decent system is preferrable to CD/mp3 digital.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4889
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I think what people respond to in vinyl is this . . .
But shouldn't these things be mix decisions? If people find rolled off highs euphonic, let the mix engineers roll off the highs! The notion that the playback device adds its own coloration should be repugnant to us as audio engineers.

In this sense, the goal of digital storage is perfect archival and transparent playback. If something in the implementation prevents this, we should be concentrating on figuring out what it is and how to fix it. Because if something sounds wrong, it should be testable.

Is filter pre-ringing the cause? I doubt it, but there are converters that use apodizing filters with no pre-ringing, so this is testable. Is mid-range noise sensitivity the cause? We can test noise-shaping algorithms. Maybe low-level aliasing is causing problems; again, testable.

If there is an implementation detail in the digital process that is corrupting archival or playback, why not leverage the considerable power of the scientific method to find and fix it? Remember: if problems do exist then they are engineering issues; brute force solutions -- such as ever-increasing sample rates or word lengths -- are not the way to tackle them.

I suspect much of what people perceive to be a problem with digital is really a problem with the mix (mixing to a DAW requires very different techniques than mixing to tape), or a problem with the master (there are no winners in the loudness war). Presumably we're all audio engineers here: if someone wants his mix to sound more like vinyl, he should learn how to mix so that it does! If people really are craving that vinyl sound, he should have no shortage of work.

There is no technical reason that should prevent a digital capture of the vinyl sound (or tape) from sounding like vinyl (or tape). If the playback is not convincing to you, try to isolate the differences. "Publish" your results online, here at GS, and let other engineers try to replicate what you found. This is the tried and true way to improve the technology. On the other hand, just sitting back and complaining about the "digital sound" adds nothing of value.
Old 13th May 2014
  #4890
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone
Strawman. Perhaps some will prefer the sound of 'old vinyl' but the question in the context of Pono is whether vinyl on a decent system is preferrable to CD/mp3 digital.
Maybe, but I'd say that if there was a straw man, it was in the post I was answering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
What chaps like you seem to always disregard is that 'audiophile' or 'correct' or 'accurate' is one thing, and feeling is another. It FEELS different to hear a vinyl record, and people like the feeling, in complete disregard whether it is 'accurate' or 'audiophile'. The sound of it, complete with crackles, etc, sets the scene in a way that emotion passes well from it to a human. Music generally wanting to communicate emotion, this can be a plus.
What chaps like you seem to always disregard is what was written and what it was in reply to. The original post said hear, my reply was about hearing: Feeling wasn't in it, and I wasn't talking about feeling.
Quote:
People don't feel the love so much with digital however, regardless how accurate or hifi it is technically. Because even at its best digital hasn't got as much love in it. At best it doesn't take love away. Vinyl ADDS love. I am sure you'll find a way to make me look like a dreaming lunatic based on this post, but if you take it to heart and ponder on it for a bit instead you may gather more of an understanding why people still bother with vinyl. But then you might not.
Hmmm... Digital hasn't got as much love in it. I think I would have to ask an expert on that. j_j? Has digital sound got as much love in it as analogue vinyl? Did anybody ever measure that?

OK... seriously now... Nope. The experience of horrible plastic 'jewel case,' much less that of a file on hard disk, does not even begin to compare with the experience of playing an LP. Does that have to be repeated? Doesn't everybody here over about 40 years old know that? And aren't we expected to know that it is not about the sound, it's about the experience.

I may be wrong, but I think it was Neil who brought up the vinyl comparison in his video, otherwise all this would be completely irrelevant.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump