AVForums South Africa

Audio/Video Hardware => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tzs503gp on December 07, 2018, 04:59:54 PM

Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 07, 2018, 04:59:54 PM
So BJís thread over LPs, got seriously derailed, by a half baked argument over the (poorly defined) qualities of analogue vs digital.

In order to have a meaningful debate over the two, whatís being debated should be clearly defined. Letís rule some issues out:
Convenience
Market relevance
Future obsolescence

Letís also only debate the best of the two. Nobodyís arguing a freshly pressed LP played on a R1m system in a hermetically sealed environment is going to sound better than an mp3 played on a bluetooth speaker.

Bump gloves......fight!

First off, we donít listen to digital music on any system. What we hear, is analogue. Digital, simply refers to the method of storage of music or sound. Some clever people have figured a way to store sound information in a digital language represented by 1s and 0s. At its simplest 1 would go beep, and 0 would be quiet. But thatís not music is it? Fortunately, digital language has become fantastically complex. We can use a sequence of 1s and 0s almost like geographic coordinates, to define complex information. Like geographic coordinates, the more precise you want to be, the more information you need to define.
This leads us to bit depth.
If I only define 1 as beep, Iím ignoring the tone, and loudness of that beep. Iím going to have to come up with longer ďcoordinatesĒ for my digital language, much like those long series of numbers that define geographic coordinates. So, I define my digital language as having 16 ďlettersĒ or bits of information for each coordinate. Using 1s and 0s as the ďlettersĒ, I create ďcoordinatesĒ which accurately describe the sound, I want to output. The resolution of my coordinates is thus 16 bits.
This brings us to sample rate.
So, I have millions of coordinates, defining a tone and loudness. In order for the output to sound good, I need to be feeding that information to the output stage very quickly. Mr. Nyquist (is it?) figured out that since the highest frequency that a human can hear is 20khz, you have to sample the digital ďcoordinatesĒ, and produce the sound/tone translation, at twice that frequency, to accurately track the sound information, represented by those digital ďcoordinatesĒ. Fortunately, 44.1khz is childís play for modern semiconductors.
So, we store complex information regarding a sound in a mathematical language, which is then ďreadĒ at great speed, by a mathematical device, to produce an arguably jagged representation of sound (waveforms).

But, thatís just a simplified description of what is actually happening inside that mathematical device. Thatís where the squared step representation of a sine wave illustration comes from. What is actually happening inside a DAC, is the computer is sampling the ďcoordinatesĒ ahead of the output. The DAC mathematically calculates the possible waveforms that correspond to a sequence of those coordinates, by a process of elimination. The result is then further processed to eliminate artifacts. The computer then recreates the sound, in analogue. The resulting sequence of tones, are an accurate representation of the digitally stored sounds. This analogue output is then fed to an output stage, for amplification.

Thatís my laymanís understanding of the process, so please feel free to correct me, or expound, if Iím leaving something important out.

The point is: we are dealing with high precision mathematical devices. Maths doesnít lie. In my opinion, the difference between an expensive DAC, and a cheap DAC, have nothing to do with the mathematical part of the conversion. Rather, the analogue output stage, is where quality is defined. Mathematics doesnít lie.

OK, so now weíre at the heart of the matter. We are dealing with highly accurate mathematical devices, which hand over to analogue output devices. The quality of those analogue output devices, are the defining factor of the quality of sound we hear.

We might as well be arguing over whether Krell is better than Mark Levinson.

Ding!
Fighters to the corners

Ding!
Round two











Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: HB on December 07, 2018, 05:37:39 PM
IT'S TO DO WITH THE EARS!!!!  :facepalm:






Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Jason Willemse on December 07, 2018, 05:57:03 PM
So BJís thread over LPs, got seriously derailed, by a half baked argument over the (poorly defined) qualities of analogue vs digital.

In order to have a meaningful debate over the two, whatís being debated should be clearly defined. Letís rule some issues out:
Convenience
Market relevance
Future obsolescence

Letís also only debate the best of the two. Nobodyís arguing a freshly pressed LP played on a R1m system in a hermetically sealed environment is going to sound better than an mp3 played on a bluetooth speaker.

Bump gloves......fight!

First off, we donít listen to digital music on any system. What we hear, is analogue. Digital, simply refers to the method of storage of music or sound. Some clever people have figured a way to store sound information in a digital language represented by 1s and 0s. At its simplest 1 would go beep, and 0 would be quiet. But thatís not music is it? Fortunately, digital language has become fantastically complex. We can use a sequence of 1s and 0s almost like geographic coordinates, to define complex information. Like geographic coordinates, the more precise you want to be, the more information you need to define.
This leads us to bit depth.
If I only define 1 as beep, Iím ignoring the tone, and loudness of that beep. Iím going to have to come up with longer ďcoordinatesĒ for my digital language, much like those long series of numbers that define geographic coordinates. So, I define my digital language as having 16 ďlettersĒ or bits of information for each coordinate. Using 1s and 0s as the ďlettersĒ, I create ďcoordinatesĒ which accurately describe the sound, I want to output. The resolution of my coordinates is thus 16 bits.
This brings us to sample rate.
So, I have millions of coordinates, defining a tone and loudness. In order for the output to sound good, I need to be feeding that information to the output stage very quickly. Mr. Nyquist (is it?) figured out that since the highest frequency that a human can hear is 20khz, you have to sample the digital ďcoordinatesĒ, and produce the sound/tone translation, at twice that frequency, to accurately track the sound information, represented by those digital ďcoordinatesĒ. Fortunately, 44.1khz is childís play for modern semiconductors.
So, we store complex information regarding a sound in a mathematical language, which is then ďreadĒ at great speed, by a mathematical device, to produce an arguably jagged representation of sound (waveforms).

But, thatís just a simplified description of what is actually happening inside that mathematical device. Thatís where the squared step representation of a sine wave illustration comes from. What is actually happening inside a DAC, is the computer is sampling the ďcoordinatesĒ ahead of the output. The DAC mathematically calculates the possible waveforms that correspond to a sequence of those coordinates, by a process of elimination. The result is then further processed to eliminate artifacts. The computer then recreates the sound, in analogue. The resulting sequence of tones, are an accurate representation of the digitally stored sounds. This analogue output is then fed to an output stage, for amplification.

Thatís my laymanís understanding of the process, so please feel free to correct me, or expound, if Iím leaving something important out.

The point is: we are dealing with high precision mathematical devices. Maths doesnít lie. In my opinion, the difference between an expensive DAC, and a cheap DAC, have nothing to do with the mathematical part of the conversion. Rather, the analogue output stage, is where quality is defined. Mathematics doesnít lie.

OK, so now weíre at the heart of the matter. We are dealing with highly accurate mathematical devices, which hand over to analogue output devices. The quality of those analogue output devices, are the defining factor of the quality of sound we hear.

We might as well be arguing over whether Krell is better than Mark Levinson.

Ding!
Fighters to the corners

Ding!
Round two
You wonít win with this one.

Quite honestly, this is not really too dissimilar to the era when motor vehicles switched from carburetors to fuel injection. Every well-heeled Weber carburetor tuner swore by them and it took many years for them to recognize the benefits. That, and that many are no longer with us today.

People mostly seem to disregard that which they donít understand, and digital music is a rather complex thing to understand.

Most pro-analogue listeners will surely have heard digital reproduction, but itís technology and therefore progresses fast. What you heard last year may well not be a representation of whatís possible today.

Iím with you on this one, and as I said in a previous post, itís a matter of time.

I love my records as much as I do my digital, and even concede that a top end analogue system trumps a digital one today... but itís not a linear comparison from a cost to sound perspective.

Itís not that folk who are so pro records are wrong... itís their willingness to reject technology that so represents history repeating itself.

Long live them all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 07, 2018, 05:57:55 PM
IT'S TO DO WITH THE EARS!!!!  :facepalm:

I agree.
Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 07, 2018, 06:32:22 PM
Is this the digital camps version of BJís thread ?

It was game over that side and itís game over this side.

What makes this one easier to conclude on is something missed in simple Semantics.. this thread is analogue not LPís or TTís and that is a serious mistake to make.

Debate as you want ,
But for me itís still game over no need to debate any further.

And the winner is 15-30ips
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/c263c5eb8872dca926378ad7ae7b7d66.png)

GLWD
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 07, 2018, 06:34:50 PM
My boxing analogy is merely in jest. Get this: I know there is nothing to win. But why canít people simply admit that they like a certain colouration. Yes, colouration is a swear word to audiophiles, but are we children? Are we naive about sound reproduction? I have ears. I live on this planet. Iíve heard LPs. I havenít spent significant time with a hi-end turntable system, but I have heard one. Was there colouration? I donít know. It takes time to gain an accurate opinion of any system.

I can honestly say I wasnít blown away by that system. It sounded good, maybe even great. But at the price? My current system sounds great to me. Iíve spent many hours with it. It blew me away the first time I heard it, as it is now. Itís my colouration.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 07, 2018, 06:43:45 PM
Is this the digital camps version of BJís thread ?

It was game over that side and itís game over this side.

What makes this one easier to conclude on is something missed in simple Semantics.. this thread is analogue not LPís or TTís and that is a serious mistake to make.

Debate as you want ,
But for me itís still game over no need to debate any further.

And the winner is 15-30ips
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/c263c5eb8872dca926378ad7ae7b7d66.png)

GLWD

You continue with your irrelevant arguments. Posting a picture of expensive equipment is supposed to prove what? It does speak loads about your values. Read and understand: Iím no one to judge your apparent values. Iím merely pointing out to you that you are exposing those values.

Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 07, 2018, 06:47:17 PM
My boxing analogy is merely in jest. Get this: I know there is nothing to win. But why canít people simply admit that they like a certain colouration. Yes, colouration is a swear word to audiophiles, but are we children? Are we naive about sound reproduction? I have ears. I live on this planet. Iíve heard LPs. I havenít spent significant time with a hi-end turntable system, but I have heard one. Was there colouration? I donít know. It takes time to gain an accurate opinion of any system.

I can honestly say I wasnít blown away by that system. It sounded good, maybe even great. But at the price? My current system sounds great to me. Iíve spent many hours with it. It blew me away the first time I heard it, as it is now. Itís my colouration.
I was hoping not to post any further. But one thing I can tell you .. I prefer coloration as per audiophiles definition thereof.
As much as I understand what typical audiophiles are after in their systems & as much as I can tell you how awesome those systems are at doing those things , I for some (whatever RJ called me earlier in the other thread ) reasons only really ever liked and preferred a few  of ďthe so called great audiophile systemsĒ..or should we be honest and just say expensive ones ...

Ps! Thought u were gonna leave price , convenience etc out of it , but now you refer to price at the first chance u have  🤷🏼‍♂️ ..

Ok and promise not to read or troll your thread any further .. itís a digital camp one anyways .. enjoy

Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 07, 2018, 06:50:39 PM
I was hoping not to post any further. But one thing I can tell you .. I prefer coloration as per audiophiles definition thereof.
As much as I understand what typical audiophiles are after in their systems & as much as I can tell you how awesome those systems are at doing those things , I for some (whatever RJ called me earlier in the other thread ) reasons only really ever liked and preferred a few  of ďthe so called great audiophile systemsĒ..or should we be honest and just say expensive ones ...

Ps! Thought u were gonna leave price , convenience etc out of it , but now you refer to price at the first chance u have  🤷🏼‍♂️ ..

Ok and promise not to read or troll your thread any further .. itís a digital camp one anyways .. enjoy

👍🏻
Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 07, 2018, 06:51:06 PM
You continue with your irrelevant arguments. Posting a picture of expensive equipment is supposed to prove what? It does speak loads about your values. Read and understand: Iím no one to judge your apparent values. Iím merely pointing out to you that you are exposing those values.

That system has an expensive TT , RTR and digital setup so what ?
The owner says the RTR is the most priced item and blows away anything else ..

You said we will leave price out of it ? And now you cry about price ?

Ps my favourite system is under 20k so U are getting the ďmy valuesĒ absolutely wrong .. how much is yours and letís compare values then.. but no donít bother ..

3rd and last Promise , I will not read nor respond to your thread ..

Again enjoy
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: JonnyP on December 07, 2018, 07:02:09 PM
Why on Earth would anyone need to choose one over the other? Enjoy your music in whatever format you like.  I love listening to my LPs, I listen to CDs, I listen to cassettes, I listen to digital downloads.  Dude, chillax and enjoy music in any format you like, just remember that not everything is available digitally and the earlier analogue recordings which usually get short shrift from remasters will have tape hiss regardless, and a highly compressed digital file will always sound bad compared to an LP.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: vleisman on December 07, 2018, 07:42:40 PM
Records rule because of ceremony. The act of unsleeving a record and placing it on a turntable, lowering the arm, aligning the needle, etc etc far outweighs anything that digital can deliver.

Allow me an old school analogy : would you rather have a real - life woman or a picture-perfect image on your phone /tablet /whatever. By the way, the real - life woman comes with bumps and other imperfections.
Apologies for the male - oriented post.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: JonnyP on December 07, 2018, 07:49:09 PM
^^^Sounds like you enjoy the foreplay that LPs require a little!

Itís like a real person vs. Rise of the Sex Robots is what you really meant.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 07, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
Records rule because of ceremony. The act of unsleeving a record and placing it on a turntable, lowering the arm, aligning the needle, etc etc far outweighs anything that digital can deliver.

Allow me an old school analogy : would you rather have a real - life woman or a picture-perfect image on your phone /tablet /whatever. By the way, the real - life woman comes with bumps and other imperfections.
Apologies for the male - oriented post.

Thanks Vleisman. I can appreciate that sentiment. I prefer older things in certain other spheres of technology. Iím not afraid to admit that the preference is out of nostalgia or sentimentalism or even sheer familiarity. But, in sound reproduction, I prefer it to be all the things high resolution digital can be.
Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 07, 2018, 08:14:42 PM


People mostly seem to disregard that which they donít understand, and digital music is a rather complex thing to understand.

but itís not a linear comparison from a cost to sound perspective.

Itís not that folk who are so pro records are wrong... itís their willingness to reject technology that so represents history repeating itself.

Ok here comes 4th and last last last one ...

I think Francios post settled the cost factor in BJís thread ..


So is it about excepting technology then ?
Cause I read about technology and complexity understanding ... etc ..
In that case ok it makes sense , but I like the look of mechanics better (yes even in cars albeit I think an irrelevant argument).
And I wonít just choose tech and new for the sake of it.

but are we children? Are we naive about sound reproduction? I have ears. I live on this planet. Iíve heard LPs. I havenít spent significant time with a hi-end turntable system, but I have heard one

You have ears , you can hear what you hear etc etc Grt and respect .. , only thing is ... so does people who prefer analogue or whatever that u donít like.
I also wonít make a call on any piece if audio gear where I just heard ďoneĒ , in fact I have heard plenty high end (again expensive tables and other things) that I just donít like myself & one thing you will learn is that listening to a system or whatever once in some setting is just not good enough too many variables .. you gotta live with something for a while even perhaps mix and match sometimes for years before you sometimes click and understand what the fuss is about ..

I am ready to think the debate is so useless because I have a suspicion that both digital and analogue can perform far beyond our hearing limitations etc , so the science than becomes irrelevant at some point perhaps cause we cannot hear further etc..
However then the argument is more about we can all listen , hear , see and decide what we like & prefer .. so in the end this ďwhat we like & prefer ď is really the only thing that counts ..
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: vleisman on December 07, 2018, 08:15:57 PM
Thanks Vleisman. I can appreciate that sentiment. I prefer older things in certain other spheres of technology. Iím not afraid to admit that the preference is out of nostalgia or sentimentalism or even sheer familiarity. But, in sound reproduction, I prefer it to be all the things high resolution digital can be.

High-res digital music is great. Good records on a high end system are great. Funky music on a commercial system in a dodgy club can be great. Many other scenarios. It's all about the context. It's the reaction and emotion  that it evokes that matters. You can't measure emotion very well, trying to measure good sound is pretty much pointless. Imo
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 07, 2018, 08:26:18 PM
High-res digital music is great. Good records on a high end system are great. Funky music on a commercial system in a dodgy club can be great. Many other scenarios. It's all about the context. It's the reaction and emotion  that it evokes that matters. You can't measure emotion very well, trying to measure good sound is pretty much pointless. Imo

Well said ok I agree with that
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Katji on December 07, 2018, 09:43:17 PM
Records rule because of ceremony. The act of unsleeving a record and placing it on a turntable, lowering the arm, aligning the needle, etc etc far outweighs anything that digital can deliver.

According to who or what?



Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: chrisc on December 07, 2018, 10:01:18 PM
That was his personal choice

Personally, I find the "rigmarole" in playing an LP record, all said, cleaning, fiddling about an unnecessary bind, but that is just me.  All the music I listen to is accessed from a computer and I find the ease of access, the vast selection of music, whether it comes from Tidal or my accumulation of music, intensely satisfying. 

I also like the way a computer can offer random access without much effort.  In addition, many amazing musicians feature on YouTube and this makes me not want to change.

Thank goodness we are all different, so there can be no "winner" which is perhaps was the intention of this thread?
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: naughty on December 07, 2018, 10:46:42 PM
Records rule because of ceremony. The act of unsleeving a record and placing it on a turntable, lowering the arm, aligning the needle, etc etc far outweighs anything that digital can deliver.

all of that just outlined the disadvantages of vinyl for me and add to that you have to clean the records - then stand up to change the tracks or turn the record over and  walk  around - theres nothing convenient about it - digital is just about in its introductory stage and its at a point where you sit down and press a few buttons on the remote control or tap your phone to control your PC to just play music and you can change albums skip tracks and do everything from the comfort of your chair without having to clean something with a spinning disc cleaner

yes there are many people who have issues with the software but a a little bit of patience and tinkering can you have you back up and running far quicker than you can go and buy a new stylus and replace it .... and we all know from other links elsewhere that the "socalled" superiority of vinyls sound quality is a myth .... and sure i think that many people like duller sound and basically thats what vinyl gives you .... and theres nothing romantic about those snaps, crackles and pops ether (and from my count for every two clean sounding records i hear i will eventually encounter one where the snap,crackle and pop is totally irritating to beyond being able to listen to the music
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Ingvar Ahlberg on December 07, 2018, 11:33:36 PM
Reality is analog, I would like if anyone could explain to me, old and stupid, how converting reality to ones and zeroes and then converting them back to analog, the reality, could ever improve upon the original, analog reality?

Ingvar
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Stanp on December 07, 2018, 11:43:52 PM
Naughty, while I liked your reply and agree with most of what you say; I don't believe that records sound dull. Not sure why you said that, but if that is what you believe so be it.

I have proved to myself that records and CD's sound equally good. I had a Nad turn table, I upgraded the cartridge. I then bought a Nad CD player some years later. I used to compare my LP's with my CD's, to me they sounded identical.

If a DAC manufacturer does an excellent job, there is absolutely no reason for that DAC not to sound as good as a TT. Our ears can't tell the difference from an excellently reproduced sound wave from the original analogue wave form; well, mine certainly can't.

Our ears and brains, while similar, are not exactly the same so we perceive sound a little differently from each other.

I will stick with my Cd's for the reasons stated by Naughty.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Stanp on December 07, 2018, 11:53:11 PM
Ingvar, the major improvement is convenience, not sound quality. And one never gets the noise issues that one can get from records.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: naughty on December 08, 2018, 12:02:51 AM
Reality is analog, I would like if anyone could explain to me, old and stupid, how converting reality to ones and zeroes and then converting them back to analog, the reality, could ever improve upon the original, analog reality?

Ingvar

Ingvar - digital is no less real than anything analogue .... yes when computers were hard to use then i could understand people hating them but nowadays even the 10 year old kids can manipulate digital technology given how good most of them are with using cellphones. And honestly that is a way to get people who otherwise would not have been interested in music to actually continue enjoying music given that CDs as well as LPs are not mainstream anymore

i reckon that a vast majority of people kids or adults dont have time for all the things that the ritual of playing vinyl would represent and a vast majority of the music listening public are not bothered to play the music that the older guys will so it doesnt make a difference to most people how it sounds - in fact a vast majority of the world will be playing their music on their phone through cheap tinny sounding in-ear monitors

and nowadays its not even millions its billions more people have a phone or desktop computer or laptop type of device, compared ot having a turntable ....  that will play their music quickly and conveniently and sounding more than good enough for most out of these devices and current music is made on similar devices so the playback on most new music will be optimised on these devices - no matter how wrong you think it is the vast majority of the mainstream world will rely on these modern devices far more than on older obsolete technology which will always remain a niche market

records for most people is nowadays a novelty item and soon the next generation of people will realize this ie your grandchildren etc will soon stop buying turntables and LPs and their kids wont even get to see one but even 100 years from now people are going to be using their phones to play music and LPs and turntables are going to be as quaint and irrelevant as Edisons phonograph is currently .... yes it served the purpose in guiding the way but as technology moves on so does (or should) everyone else - in 100 years from now even streaming will probably be old hat and there will be universal libraries which everyone will eventually have access to rather than a small select niche band of people just having access to a few select records that only they use

the digital era is a way of selling music to the masses and that surely has to be a good thing or do you want to just keep all the music to yourself because only you and a few others have the LPs? or is it better if millions of people subscribe to a streaming service and they all have unlimited access to a highish res collection that they can select from

and while it starts from mass distribution there will eventually be a new technology high resolution service for enthusiasts because there are always enthusiasts in some form or other which caters for a minimal demand of higher quality technology for people who want to differentiate themselves by spending money on higher quality

the thing is digital is not "coming" anymore .... it is already here with a vengeance and its soon going to stamp out the older obsolete technologies in the minds of the majority with only a very small minority being stubborn and holding on to the obsolete technologies maybe for a generation or two but LPs wont be around for very much longer when they cant really make money out if it .... and im sorry but thats the bottom line "money is what makes the world go around" and right now the only value in records is that its making curious people spend money and its not going to do that for very much longer once the curiosity wanes.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: naughty on December 08, 2018, 12:06:05 AM
Naughty, while I liked your reply and agree with most of what you say; I don't believe that records sound dull. Not sure why you said that, but if that is what you believe so be it.

okay maybe i exaggerated for effect but they do sound a wee bit duller than digital solutions which is why i believe that many people prefer them and they claim it sounds "warmer" .... to me the difference is not warmness but a small amount of dullness
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 08, 2018, 07:56:56 AM
The gist of it, for those who still donít know, is this: record players produce sound by electromagnetic induction, via a mechanical linkage involving huge forces of acceleration. There is a physical limit to how accurately a stylus can track a groove, beyond which, the music is no longer true. Engineering the stylus assembly to more accurately track the groove at insane speeds, is what turntable state of the art is. This development is akin to devolpments in motorsport. Does a cartridge last forever? I donít think so. From the first time you use it, it starts degrading. I know it will last a long time at near peak performance, but weíre talking absolutes. Degradation starts at day one. Then there is the wear and tear on the physical medium. Again, in absolute terms, that wear is undeniable.
So what? Itís still sounds great to you!
Fine by me. No sarcasm intended or implied.

Digitally stored data, by some accounts can also suffer degradation on a bit level. I have never experienced this. From my first post in this thread, it was stated that DACs produce analogue sound via semiconductors. Those are super reliable switching devices. Now record, LP or vinyl proponents might say,Ē Ya but switches in the signal stream sound like squared off sound waves!Ē

They do? I have some news for you, though. That is precisely how your preamp, and final amplification works. Again, there is a cost to performance curve, where those devices are concerned.

Forget the idea of digital. Itís all analogue where it matters. Where a pair of coils or magnets oscillate at the limit of physics on this planet in a turntable system, a semiconductor cruises while modulating a voltage in a ďdigitalĒ system. Reliability, accuracy, convenience, cost. There is no comparison.

Colouration? Choose yours and be happy.

Carbs or efi, itís about burning rubber, no?
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: chrisc on December 08, 2018, 08:09:28 AM
One must study the Philips patent (and later codicils) which explains in detail the concept of digital recording (the Red Book standard).   Back in 1975, it was realised that a 16 bit sample could never recreate the exact waveform generated by an analogue sound signal.  Engineers at Philips and Sony realised that, in order to "improve" as it were, the possibility of recreating the waveform, the sample rate would need to be increased to at least 24 bit, or else (the clever bit), oversampling and regeneration of the re-sampled signal (off the CD surface) would, as it were, fill in the gaps.

In the late 1970's we had 8 bit computing, the PC had yet to be invented and a 16 bit sample was cutting edge.  Fast forward to 1997, advances in processing power (some 128 times more powerful than the 1979 edition) we are able to achieve 24 bit resolution, thereby lowering the noise floor considerably, and have reading frequencies of 96KHz and even higher.

Further to this, SONY developed DSD and Telarc jumped in with both feet.   DSD 1-bit is also a compromise, and in 1995, a 5-bit format was suggested, but was shelved on account of development costs for players

You canít make a direct comparison between the resolution of DSD and PCM, but an estimate is that a 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD has similar resolution to a 20-bit 96KHz PCM. Another estimate is that a 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD is equal to 20-bit 141.12KHz PCM or 24-bit 117.6KHz PCM.

In other words a DSD64 SACD has higher resolution than a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD, roughly the same resolution as 24-bit 96KHz PCM recording, and not as much resolution as a 24-bit 192KHz PCM recording.

Both DSD and PCM are ďquantized,Ē meaning numeric values are set to approximate the analog signal. Both DSD and PCM have quantization errors. Both DSD and PCM have linearity errors. Both DSD and PCM have quantization noise that requires filtering. In other words, neither one is perfect.

PCM encodes the amplitude of the analog signal sampled at uniform intervals (sort of like graph paper), and each sample is quantized to the nearest value within a range of digital steps. The range of steps is based on the bit depth of the recording. A 16-bit recording has 65,536 steps, a 20-bit recording has 1,048,576 steps, and a 24-bit recording has 16,777,216 steps.

The more bits and/or the higher the sampling rate, the higher the resolution. That translates to a 20-bit 96KHz recording having roughly 33 times the resolution of a 16-bit 44.1KHz recording. No small difference. So why is it that a 24-bit 96KHz recording only sounds slightly better than a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD? I'll answer that later in the blog.

DSD encodes music using pulse-density modulation, a sequence of single-bit values at a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz. This translates to 64 times the Red Book CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz, but at only one 32,768th of its 16-bit resolution.

(I can provide a graph to illustrate, if required)

To summarise - a properly sampled digital recording will (IMHO) as accurate and musical as its analogue source.    The mathematics of the original Philips patent require some explanation I agree
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Signet on December 08, 2018, 09:37:46 AM
In my view it comes down to personal choice. 

I am a fan of both and to each his own. 
The main item is the emotion and feel that you get from listening to a particular song.

Sometimes I like the convenience of music in digital format.  i.e. changing songs mid way, browsing through multiple artists / songs, and setting up playlists, etc, etc.

On the other hand, when I want to get into a relaxed mode, the experience of taking vinyl, putting it on a TT and seeing it spin and produce music is amazing (given I'm new and the excitement is still fresh).  As vleisman said, the experience of it is wonderful. 

So when I want to hear music I use digital means, and when I want to listen to music I want analogue means. 
But that is my preference based on the overall experience.  There are much cleverer folk here who break down the science of it.  For me it's emotion first. 

PS - I do find the sound of vinyl warmer and crisper to listen to. 
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Larry on December 08, 2018, 11:07:11 AM


Right...letís not lose sight of the fact that there is no shortage of LPs pressed from digitally mastered recordings, this has been going on since the 70ís if memory serves.  So if analogue is your basis for reality or audio perfection then it might be a tad flawed.

On a side note: I care nothing for the ceremony or process of getting my music actually played, in fact mores the ritual mores the pain.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Ingvar Ahlberg on December 08, 2018, 12:46:47 PM
Quote
Ingvar - digital is no less real than anything analogue .... yes when computers were hard to use then i could understand people hating them but nowadays even the 10 year old kids can manipulate digital technology given how good most of them are with using cellphones. And honestly that is a way to get people who otherwise would not have been interested in music to actually continue enjoying music given that CDs as well as LPs are not mainstream anymore

No, digital is ones and zeroes, that is not reality, on all other points I agree with You Naughty, the most important in this matter is that people listen to music, I just enjoy beeing a grumpy old man, (and how do You think I find all new artists, endless travels around the globe purchasing LP:s or this pc that I communicate with You friends through?)

Ingvar
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Tzs503gp on December 08, 2018, 01:35:03 PM
Letís get right down to it. What does analogue mean? Itís a word used so much, by so many, so come on. Define it.
When you understand the meaning of the word, you cannot argue that digital sound reproduction is anything other than an analogue technique.
Go on, go look it up.

What we are really discussing, is mechanical sound reproduction vs electronic.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: chrisc on December 08, 2018, 01:41:45 PM
In audio terms, the movement of a stylus is amplified and processed to create an audio signal from a loudspeaker

The amplitude of the stylus movement is directly proportional to the movement of the speaker cone, leaving out such artifacts as RIAA correction

Digital audio is a representation of an analog audio signal used by computers and digital devices to record and playback sound. Similar to the frames of a video, digital audio is made up of a series of samples which recreate a sound when played back in sequence.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Curlycat on December 08, 2018, 02:05:48 PM
SIGH ...
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: chrisc on December 08, 2018, 03:58:31 PM
^^^ ?  Getting confused or wish the discussion were ended?
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Rotten Johnny on December 08, 2018, 05:42:52 PM
I suspect heís just tired of all the misinformation sprouted as though it were gospel.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: naughty on December 08, 2018, 06:23:47 PM
No, digital is ones and zeroes, that is not reality, on all other points I agree with You Naughty, the most important in this matter is that people listen to music, I just enjoy beeing a grumpy old man, (and how do You think I find all new artists, endless travels around the globe purchasing LP:s or this pc that I communicate with You friends through?)

Ingvar

actually - the 1 and 0 is just a representation of two different states .... and these are on and off which is a natural state for most things to be in .... if you look at a CD player - its just a unifunctional computer and there is a precedence in nature for how a computer works - its called a human brain

a computer just works a little more simply because it works in those two states ie on or off and the human brain is a bit more complicated because it is capable of more states ie the equivalent of 10 from what i have read somewhere but simply put bits are not just 1s and 0s because thats just a way of naming the on and off states that those bits use to work
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Ju_dy@RT on December 08, 2018, 06:31:18 PM
Every time I see a thread like this, I imagine a very similar debate happening on a car forum.... petrol vs diesel?

Point is ... there is no answer.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: BJ on December 08, 2018, 06:43:42 PM
Every time I see a thread like this, I imagine a very similar debate happening on a car forum.... petrol vs diesel?

Point is ... there is no answer.

Hahaha.....I am a Libra.....I have one of each :giggle:
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 08, 2018, 06:46:15 PM
actually - the 1 and 0 is just a representation of two different states .... and these are on and off which is a natural state for most things to be in .... if you look at a CD player - its just a unifunctional computer and there is a precedence in nature for how a computer works - its called a human brain

a computer just works a little more simply because it works in those two states ie on or off and the human brain is a bit more complicated because it is capable of more states ie the equivalent of 10 from what i have read somewhere but simply put bits are not just 1s and 0s because thats just a way of naming the on and off states that those bits use to work

just  realized the digi guys donít even Own decent turntables and the most of the vocal ones Own none or heard one  .., and yet all the TT guys own or have lived with some of the best digi gear as well  ... Iím going with Judy , curly and others now on this .. just

Nothing to do with the topic but
Iím sorry a bit cannot be anything else.
The CPU and AlU operates in binary only.
The assembler has not changed yet.
You represent other things , systems , codepages etc using bytes which is a collection of bits and even the modern bit configurations is just a concatenation of the basic 8 bit bytes to store the larger addresses for addressability..


 


Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Jason Willemse on December 08, 2018, 07:45:35 PM
just  realized the digi guys donít even Own decent turntables and the most of the vocal ones Own none or heard one  .., and yet all the TT guys own or have lived with some of the best digi gear as well  ... Iím going with Judy , curly and others now on this .. just

Nothing to do with the topic but
Iím sorry a bit cannot be anything else.
The CPU and AlU operates in binary only.
The assembler has not changed yet.
You represent other things , systems , codepages etc using bytes which is a collection of bits and even the modern bit configurations is just a concatenation of the basic 8 bit bytes to store the larger addresses for addressability..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Ingvar Ahlberg on December 08, 2018, 07:51:38 PM
Quote
Nothing to do with the topic but
Iím sorry a bit cannot be anything else.
The CPU and AlU operates in binary only.
The assembler has not changed yet.
You represent other things , systems , codepages etc using bytes which is a collection of bits and even the modern bit configurations is just a concatenation of the basic 8 bit bytes to store the larger addresses for addressability..

Thank You KJS, i really liked that.

That is also the core of the discussion, 0 and 1 is not reality, nothing in reality is on or off, except life, reality is blood sweat and tears and the occasional squirrel, or in Your whereabouts maybe som elephants.

Ingvar
Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 08, 2018, 08:01:37 PM
Ingvar thatís the love of vinyl for me and I suppose the rejection of it by others.

Life has snaps and pops and I just happen to like it that way .. to be honest I prefer my very old satchmo , Ella and Shirley bassey over many clean clean records .. it gives one that 50 year ago mystical feeling my new records or discs for that music just donít carry ( I think itís called character ) .... and ofcourse these have all the oldness showing up no matter how you clean or whatever... but itís these records that make me sing along often and feel something magical ( no perfectionist expectations when they play )....


Ofcourse others prefer to sit still at calculated angles ( note digi and analogue ) and donít want to hear a needle drop when listening to their systems.

I suppose we have to respect all in the end .
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: kenvanraas on December 08, 2018, 08:20:31 PM
^^^ A music lover uses audio equipment to listen to his/her music. An audiophile uses music to listen to his audio equipment LOL
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: JonnyP on December 08, 2018, 08:20:55 PM
Hereís one for everybody.

I found a copy of the ĎBirdí soundtrack ie. The Clint Eastwood movie about Charlie ĎBirdí Parker the other day.  The soundtrack used original live recordings (analogue tape) and the engineers isolated Birdís sax as much as possible (some crowd noise not withstanding), then they recorded a new backing band (who featured in the film alongside an actor playing along who was not recorded). All put together, itís an analogue/digital surprise and sounds great on vinyl!
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: AudioMule on December 08, 2018, 09:49:06 PM
In the current world of music, very few records are pure analog, from tracking, mixing which is now In the box with fusion of outboard gear...... one day after I own a TT I will come back to this thread and have a say.

But most records if not all undergo a conversion at some point AD and DA.... well I enjoyed this read

https://vintageking.com/blog/2018/11/aes-afterglow-2018/ (https://vintageking.com/blog/2018/11/aes-afterglow-2018/)
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 08, 2018, 10:05:58 PM
More since the 80ís when digital arrived.

But good labels still use master tapes.
Hence my comment above love that old scratchy ones they are clearly from analogue source.. the debate is also going on wrt. Older or newer LPís .. again the debate ends in ďit dependsĒ

http://vinyljunkies.co/vinyl-101-original-vs-reissue/

Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Stanp on December 08, 2018, 10:55:52 PM
The bottom line for me is that I can enjoy both formats, however, when listening to an LP and I experience any hiss, crackle or pop, I want to run away. I am extremely happy with my digital set up; it sounds wonderful, so I have no desire to go back to LP's.

For those, like me, who believe both formats can be good:
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-versus-analog2.htm
For the LP camp:
https://www.cnet.com/news/does-music-sound-better-when-its-digital-or-analog/#
For the Digital camp:
https://www.quora.com/Will-digital-audio-ever-sound-as-good-as-analog
Written by a lady mathematician :
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/which-sounds-better-analog-or-digital-music/
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: AudioMule on December 08, 2018, 11:37:17 PM
ďwhat is truthĒ? To me all conversion and every capture method from tape to 0ís and 1ís alters the sound. I can only listen to the source and hope to retain (or enhance) all that it is giving me. I think that above a certain build quality level we get close to the source but each still device/system has its own sound. We go with what feels right to us individually.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Steerpike on December 09, 2018, 02:18:48 AM
But for me itís still game over no need to debate any further.
And the winner is 15-30ips

I'll second that ^^^.
Very few people ever get to hear a tape machine that can run at 30IPS, much less in their own home.

One must study the Philips patent (and later codicils) which explains in detail the concept of digital recording (the Red Book standard).   Back in 1975, it was realised that a 16 bit sample could never recreate the exact waveform generated by an analogue sound signal.  Engineers at Philips and Sony realised that, in order to "improve" as it were, the possibility of recreating the waveform, the sample rate would need to be increased to at least 24 bit, or else (the clever bit), oversampling and regeneration of the re-sampled signal (off the CD surface) would, as it were, fill in the gaps.

Sample rate is not measured in bits; it is measured in Herts, kiloHertz, or bits-per-second. "24" or "16" is the word length, not the sample rate - word lenghth defines (or limits) the dynaimc range of the recording, sample rate defines (or limits) the frequncy response. 16 bit gives you 96dB of dynamic range - no earthly home has an environment where this can be taken full advantage of.
24 bits is fantasy - the analogue circuitry, room behaviours, studio noise, system noise, masks and buries the least significant 4 bits. Realistically, you can make use of at most 20 bits of word length.

Oversampling is not used to increase the information content or resolution of the recording. It cannot do that. Oversampling has ONE function only: to make the reconstruction filter simpler, cheaper, and with fewer artifacts in the audible band. In Philps' case, they also put it to god effect n that they could use their existing 14-bit DAC chips to convert a 16-bit sample at full accuracy, but doing two conversions - first time on the 14 most significant bits, and second time on the remainder. Obviously it had to be done at twice the speed, but they went to 4x the speed in order to make the reconstruction filters sound better too.
It is a mathematical axiom that every time you double the sampling rate, you get one extra bit of "resolution", but it is not true resolution as it does not exist in the original recoding or represent anything recorded. It is an averaged value, that has been interpolated by a playback filter - a filter that can be either digital or analogue.

actually - the 1 and 0 is just a representation of two different states .... and these are on and off which is a natural state for most things to be in .... if you look at a CD player - its just a unifunctional computer and there is a precedence in nature for how a computer works - its called a human brain

a computer just works a little more simply because it works in those two states ie on or off and the human brain is a bit more complicated because it is capable of more states ie the equivalent of 10 from what i have read somewhere but simply put bits are not just 1s and 0s because thats just a way of naming the on and off states that those bits use to work

There is nothing inherent in computing technology that says of dictates 0 and 1. Designers happen to have chosen binary mathematics because it offers very good noise immunity. You could quite feasibly build a trinary computer, or higher number of logic states. The more states you have, the more complex the hardware becomes, and less reliable, and George Boole had created a nice set of mathematics that worked on binary data sets. It was the simple solution, not the only solution.

****
I perceive in digital/analogue or LP/CD arguments a degree of panic and insecurity. People fear that they have not made the best choice. If someone else is using old science and is enjoying it, perhaps 'I' have made a bad decision and chosen a doomed route, or a route that doesn't necessarily show me to be embracing the latest fashion. "I" must justify my use of music streaming services by pointing out how many other people have made the same choice.



Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Stanp on December 09, 2018, 05:04:58 AM
Logically a LP ought to be superior to a CD because all you need to do is amplify what is on the LP; where as with a CD you have to recreate the original analogue. But if you have a very good DAC, I believe in a blind test, it will be very very difficult to distinguish between the two.

Like everything in this world, nothing is perfect; both formats have their own inherent problems.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: DeonC on December 09, 2018, 06:43:09 AM
Both formats are flawed. CDs try to mathematically recreate the original waveform. It has been sliced and diced, and they sow it back together as good as possible. Can get pretty good, but still flawed. Analogue has to skew the waveform (RIAA encoding) or they won't get more than one track on the side of a LP (and the tracking would be a nightmare). Now the phonostage has to try and undo this reshaping as best it can, while dealing with the unlinearities created by a single needle trying to reproduce stereo. Also therefore flawed. R2R? Same RIAA curve that has to be un-curved. The fact that we get listenable music is testament to how good the technologies are, no matter the age.

For me, I have both and enjoy both. I love the convenience of digital, being able to skip tracks and play random tracks and artists. At the same time I also enjoy the drama of analogue. And playing an LP forces me to listen to all the tracks of an album, which often leads to me discovering some hidden gems that I would not have heard in the 'random play-only-the-best-tracks' digital style of listening. OTOH, that also forces me to listen to tracks I like less. But so are the up and downs of both formats.

I have heard some superb systems in both camps, and I have also experienced a lowly, stock-standard Lenco TT totally destroy a Rotel RCD-965 CD-player (one of the best of it's day, and a really nice CDP, IMHO). You don't have to spend much to enjoy great analogue (a suitably tweaked Lenco will totally shock some folks), and these days you don't have to spend a mint to enjoy good digital (some really brilliant DACs are cheap these days- just spend some time building a proper output stage and you'll be shocked at the results).

So, in closing, I enjoy both. Love my LPs (have a few thousand of them), love my CDs (yup, standard redbook, and I have many, probably also a few thousand). Don't have the money for high-end R2R, but I'll get there. So now I leave you to make your own conclusions.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Gerlach on December 09, 2018, 08:42:53 AM
Every time I see a thread like this, I imagine a very similar debate happening on a car forum.... petrol vs diesel?

Point is ... there is no answer.

Or like a cable thread  :giggle: :giggle: :giggle:
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 09, 2018, 09:24:45 AM
Or like a cable thread  :giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

Donít start something now .
Cables work better on digital 
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: 2wice on December 09, 2018, 10:15:13 AM
So, in closing, I enjoy both. Love my LPs (have a few thousand of them), love my CDs (yup, standard redbook, and I have many, probably also a few thousand).
(https://i.imgur.com/xIqc3Pn.jpg)
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: Steerpike on December 09, 2018, 10:45:38 AM
Analogue has to skew the waveform (RIAA encoding) or they won't get more than one track on the side of a LP (and the tracking would be a nightmare). Now the phonostage has to try and undo this reshaping as best it can, while dealing with the unlinearities created by a single needle trying to reproduce stereo. Also therefore flawed. R2R? Same RIAA curve that has to be un-curved.

Compact Disc also uses a pre-emphasis / de-emphasis equalisation curve, just as is done for tape & LPs.
It is selectable by the producer, and a flag in the sub-code data tells the player what de-emphasis to use (exactly the same as the holes punched in the back edge of a cassette tape to tell the player what equalisation to use).

Much computer "ripping" software does not make any correction for this, so the wave file extracted from a CD often has a skewed frequency response.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: chrisc on December 09, 2018, 11:15:59 AM
Scientific answers to a complicated question might be correct, but will be be little understood by lay folk.   I have had to sell, explain and translate technical equipment to the public for years.  Quoting stats and things like "low resistance" and "standby time" is a waste of breath.  I found that if you provided succinct and straightforward instructions, they would get it right most of the time

As a general rule, I found lawyers and accountants to be the most inept in understanding technical terms

When I employed technical staff, one of the first questions asked of them was "explain the difference between AC and DC".  About 1/3 could.  Often you got a blank stare
Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 09, 2018, 11:32:30 AM
Compact Disc also uses a pre-emphasis / de-emphasis equalisation curve, just as is done for tape & LPs.
It is selectable by the producer, and a flag in the sub-code data tells the player what de-emphasis to use (exactly the same as the holes punched in the back edge of a cassette tape to tell the player what equalisation to use).

Much computer "ripping" software does not make any correction for this, so the wave file extracted from a CD often has a skewed frequency response.
Very interesting D, guess itís just a little something that the nice video someone posted in BJís thread forgot to include .

Shows you how gullible we all are and how thereís always a bias( unconscious perhaps) to market a certain position.

Now I get the jist of your previous comment wrt. Insecurity etc...

Also I think Chris hit the nail above wrt. The science being ďnot understoodĒ, but here one has to question wether itís intentional for the science to leave it up to the consumers ?
If not than perhaps they should all only manufacture and sell complete integrated systems,  cables included etc to leave no doubt in the users mind that everything is well matched etc..
or ? is it the work of the beancounter,  to ensure that doubt exists and then rely on marketing to make sure everyone is even more insecure.

 Are we unsuspecting , insecure victims,  having said that ?

 


 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: ron g on December 09, 2018, 11:49:40 AM
I perceive in digital/analogue or LP/CD arguments a degree of panic and insecurity. People fear that they have not made the best choice. If someone else is using old science and is enjoying it, perhaps 'I' have made a bad decision and chosen a doomed route, or a route that doesn't necessarily show me to be embracing the latest fashion. "I" must justify my use of music streaming services by pointing out how many other people have made the same choice.


this may just be the most sensible thing said in this entire thread.
kind of like 2 groups of schoolkids arguing that their choice of a particular toy is better than the other group's choice.

Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: naughty on December 09, 2018, 12:12:02 PM
I perceive in digital/analogue or LP/CD arguments a degree of panic and insecurity. People fear that they have not made the best choice. If someone else is using old science and is enjoying it, perhaps 'I' have made a bad decision and chosen a doomed route, or a route that doesn't necessarily show me to be embracing the latest fashion. "I" must justify my use of music streaming services by pointing out how many other people have made the same choice.

actually this theory is all hogwash and doesnt hold a drop of water .... for example i am one of those saying that streaming leads the way .... yet i dont subscribe to a single streaming service (yet) and all the music i listen to is contained on my own home network - so that whole statement above is actually total nonsense and nowhere near the truth - and thats more what this is about

Im totally sorry but the truth is that people caught up with a niche desire dont want to recognize themself as such and hate that they are not part of the majority, or really cant keep up the REAL world HINT : the niche desire doesnt contain any ones and zeros
Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 09, 2018, 12:49:12 PM
actually this theory is all hogwash and doesnt hold a drop of water .... for example i am one of those saying that streaming leads the way .... yet i dont subscribe to a single streaming service (yet) and all the music i listen to is contained on my own home network - so that whole statement above is actually total nonsense and nowhere near the truth - and thats more what this is about

Im totally sorry but the truth is that people caught up with a niche desire dont want to recognize themself as such and hate that they are not part of the majority, or really cant keep up the REAL world HINT : the niche desire doesnt contain any ones and zeros
So you donít stream , donít own a TT and yet you have the most to say about how good or bad those things are ?
I donít get it that you are trying to tell someone where to get off and yet you seem confused debating things you donít even seem to have a drop of experience with form any angle other than hearsay or a once off experience by the sound of things ?

I would therefore think you are actually an exception and arguments and debates can not cater for one exception the comment D made is a general one , so cool it doesnít apply to you we get that  , but that doesnít make it wrong , just wrong for you I totally agree with it and so does some members above... maybe we are in the minority in the end and that will still make it right for some and it right for others it will never be quoting you ďTOTAL HWĒ...

So you hate that you are part of the niche audiophile world on avforums ? Explains your fuse ..

Anyway , I know I just broke my promise to the mods to please consider your short Temper( cause some members have that privilege it seems)  , so I feel I have to explain to you that I am not attacking you just making an observation,  so read it calmly and ignore the noise around the core of the story.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: fredeb on December 09, 2018, 01:22:11 PM
From Stan Rosenthal's translation of the Toa te Ching :

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/rosenthal.html (https://terebess.hu/english/tao/rosenthal.html)

2. LETTING GO OF COMPARISONS

We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct,
but only see by differentiation,
that which it manifests.

Thus, that which is seen as beautiful
is beautiful compared with that
which is seen as lacking beauty;
an action considered skilled
is so considered in comparison
with another, which seems unskilled.

That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.

Through his experience,
the sage becomes aware that all things change,
and that he who seems to lead,
might also, in another situation, follow.
So he does nothing; he neither leads nor follows.
That which he does is neither big nor small;
without intent, it is neither difficult,
nor done with ease.
His task completed, he then lets go of it;
seeking no credit, he cannot be discredited.
Thus, his teaching lasts for ever,
and he is held in high esteem.
Title: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: King_Julian_S on December 09, 2018, 01:27:59 PM
Sho.. more confused now freedeb ..

let that be that
Simply Que serŠ, serŠ
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: 2wice on December 09, 2018, 01:46:00 PM
So you donít stream , donít own a TT and yet you have the most to say about how good or bad those things are ?
I donít get it that you are trying to tell someone where to get off and yet you seem confused debating things you donít even seem to have a drop of experience with form any angle other than hearsay or a once off experience by the sound of things ?

I would therefore think you are actually an exception and arguments and debates can not cater for one exception the comment D made is a general one , so cool it doesnít apply to you we get that  , but that doesnít make it wrong , just wrong for you I totally agree with it and so does some members above... maybe we are in the minority in the end and that will still make it right for some and it right for others it will never be quoting you ďTOTAL HWĒ...

So you hate that you are part of the niche audiophile world on avforums ? Explains your fuse ..

Anyway , I know I just broke my promise to the mods to please consider your short Temper( cause some members have that privilege it seems)  , so I feel I have to explain to you that I am not attacking you just making an observation,  so read it calmly and ignore the noise around the core of the story.

Don't feed the troll, as soon as they start arguing the quality of the man instead of the ball, move on.
Title: Re: Get in the ring- Digital vs Analog
Post by: chrisc on December 09, 2018, 01:47:32 PM
We are all sages here, some more qualified than others.

A bit like the pigs in George Orwell's "Animal Farm"