Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Analog vs Digital- Again
Analog vs Digital- Again
I was just watching "Wired Science" on PBS. They just did a "shoot-out"
between digital and analog sound. I'm not going to argue with the result,
because they so screwed-up the way that they explained what they were doing
to the TV audience as to make the entire thing worthless.
First they introduced a recording engineer who's Chicago studio is all
analog. He maintains that analog is better than digital (without defining
WHAT he means by "digital"). Then they interviewed a recording engineer that
thought that digital was better than analog (again without explaining WHAT
kind of digital: 16/44.1, 24/96, DSD, MP3 whatever). Then they thoroughly
confused the issue by interchangeably using the terms MP3 and digital
recording- as if they were one and the same. Then they picked two other
recording engineers and two musicians to listen to a cut from those same
musicians' latest recording. Sometimes they were listening to analog,
sometimes digital, and they held up paddles with the words "digital" and
"analog" written on them, to show whenever they thought they heard a
difference. The cut they played was contiguous with no breaks to indicate
when or if the media had changed (how did they do THAT without editing the
two together onto the same medium??!). In the end, the two musicians chose
correctly 53% of the time, and the two recording engineers chose correctly
55% of the time. In other words, essentially, statistically, no better than
blind chance. The conclusion that the TV show producers came to was that
digital is indistinguishable from analog.
This "test" basically just confuses the issue. They say that they were
testing the widely held belief that analog sounds better than digital. But
what they don't differentiate between is PCM digital CD vs MP3. The
impression that I was left with is that they were saying that an analog
master is statistically indistinguishable from an MP3 digital simply because
they made no effort to differentiate between MP3 and RedBook PCM and never
said what the listening "panel" was actually listening too, or the
circumstances under which the "listening test" was conducted. "Wired
Science"? Bogus science is more like it.
I was just watching "Wired Science" on PBS. They just did a "shoot-out"
between digital and analog sound. I'm not going to argue with the result,
because they so screwed-up the way that they explained what they were doing
to the TV audience as to make the entire thing worthless.
First they introduced a recording engineer who's Chicago studio is all
analog. He maintains that analog is better than digital (without defining
WHAT he means by "digital"). Then they interviewed a recording engineer that
thought that digital was better than analog (again without explaining WHAT
kind of digital: 16/44.1, 24/96, DSD, MP3 whatever). Then they thoroughly
confused the issue by interchangeably using the terms MP3 and digital
recording- as if they were one and the same. Then they picked two other
recording engineers and two musicians to listen to a cut from those same
musicians' latest recording. Sometimes they were listening to analog,
sometimes digital, and they held up paddles with the words "digital" and
"analog" written on them, to show whenever they thought they heard a
difference. The cut they played was contiguous with no breaks to indicate
when or if the media had changed (how did they do THAT without editing the
two together onto the same medium??!). In the end, the two musicians chose
correctly 53% of the time, and the two recording engineers chose correctly
55% of the time. In other words, essentially, statistically, no better than
blind chance. The conclusion that the TV show producers came to was that
digital is indistinguishable from analog.
This "test" basically just confuses the issue. They say that they were
testing the widely held belief that analog sounds better than digital. But
what they don't differentiate between is PCM digital CD vs MP3. The
impression that I was left with is that they were saying that an analog
master is statistically indistinguishable from an MP3 digital simply because
they made no effort to differentiate between MP3 and RedBook PCM and never
said what the listening "panel" was actually listening too, or the
circumstances under which the "listening test" was conducted. "Wired
Science"? Bogus science is more like it.
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
of DAT. Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
tape instead of DAT.
Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
Thank you
Mike Mueller
This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
of DAT. Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
tape instead of DAT.
Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
Thank you
Mike Mueller
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:44:43 -0800, mike mueller wrote
(in article <fh0l3b0223@news1.newsguy,com >):
> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
> difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
> different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
> of DAT. Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
> tape instead of DAT.
> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
> Thank you
> Mike Mueller
Interesting, but irrelevant to to the point of my previous post.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:44:43 -0800, mike mueller wrote
(in article <fh0l3b0223@news1.newsguy,com >):
> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
> difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
> different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
> of DAT. Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
> tape instead of DAT.
> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
> Thank you
> Mike Mueller
Interesting, but irrelevant to to the point of my previous post.
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
mike mueller wrote:
> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
> difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
> different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
That difference is not due to the mediums, though. Take that LP and
record it to digital with a good soundcard. Burn an audio CD. I bet if
you test that CD against the LP, no one will tell the difference. What
does that say?
> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
> of DAT.
Because, like all things, there's good and bad. There's bad digital
audio and good digital audio. After 20 some odd years digital audio is
reaching its mature stage, if it hasn't already. We've had mediums like
DVDA, SACD, great DA converters like the DAC1 etc. Pretty soon
everything in digital audio will be great. The onboard sound of your
cheap computer will eventually sound every bit as good as a DAC1.
Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
> tape instead of DAT.
Pleasant euphonics of analog, that's all it is.
> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
> Thank you
> Mike Mueller
Master
mike mueller wrote:
> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
> difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
> different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
That difference is not due to the mediums, though. Take that LP and
record it to digital with a good soundcard. Burn an audio CD. I bet if
you test that CD against the LP, no one will tell the difference. What
does that say?
> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
> of DAT.
Because, like all things, there's good and bad. There's bad digital
audio and good digital audio. After 20 some odd years digital audio is
reaching its mature stage, if it hasn't already. We've had mediums like
DVDA, SACD, great DA converters like the DAC1 etc. Pretty soon
everything in digital audio will be great. The onboard sound of your
cheap computer will eventually sound every bit as good as a DAC1.
Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
> tape instead of DAT.
Pleasant euphonics of analog, that's all it is.
> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
> Thank you
> Mike Mueller
Master
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:10:25 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article <fh2pd102g77@news5.newsguy,com >):
> mike mueller wrote:
>> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
>> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
>> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
>> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
>> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
>> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
>> difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
>> different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
>> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
> That difference is not due to the mediums, though. Take that LP and
> record it to digital with a good soundcard. Burn an audio CD. I bet if
> you test that CD against the LP, no one will tell the difference. What
> does that say?
>
>> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
>> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
>> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
>> of DAT.
> Because, like all things, there's good and bad. There's bad digital
> audio and good digital audio. After 20 some odd years digital audio is
> reaching its mature stage, if it hasn't already. We've had mediums like
> DVDA, SACD, great DA converters like the DAC1 etc. Pretty soon
> everything in digital audio will be great. The onboard sound of your
> cheap computer will eventually sound every bit as good as a DAC1.
>
> Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
>> tape instead of DAT.
> Pleasant euphonics of analog, that's all it is.
>> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
>> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
>> Thank you
>> Mike Mueller
>
> Master
Although I *believe* that I can hear more "air" around instruments and a
richer, more "lifelike" ambience from a DSD recording than I can from the
same performance recorded in Redbook, it's hardly scientific and I'd hate to
bet the farm on being able to consistently pick which is which. The fact is
that the best of today's Redbook CDs are very good indeed. The old cigarette
commercials had it right (if I might be allowed to paraphrase) Digital's come
a long way, baby. Its not just the recording end that's improved either.
Today's D/A sections are much better than they were a decade ago.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:10:25 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article <fh2pd102g77@news5.newsguy,com >):
> mike mueller wrote:
>> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
>> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
>> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
>> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
>> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
>> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
>> difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
>> different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
>> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
> That difference is not due to the mediums, though. Take that LP and
> record it to digital with a good soundcard. Burn an audio CD. I bet if
> you test that CD against the LP, no one will tell the difference. What
> does that say?
>
>> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
>> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
>> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
>> of DAT.
> Because, like all things, there's good and bad. There's bad digital
> audio and good digital audio. After 20 some odd years digital audio is
> reaching its mature stage, if it hasn't already. We've had mediums like
> DVDA, SACD, great DA converters like the DAC1 etc. Pretty soon
> everything in digital audio will be great. The onboard sound of your
> cheap computer will eventually sound every bit as good as a DAC1.
>
> Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
>> tape instead of DAT.
> Pleasant euphonics of analog, that's all it is.
>> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
>> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
>> Thank you
>> Mike Mueller
>
> Master
Although I *believe* that I can hear more "air" around instruments and a
richer, more "lifelike" ambience from a DSD recording than I can from the
same performance recorded in Redbook, it's hardly scientific and I'd hate to
bet the farm on being able to consistently pick which is which. The fact is
that the best of today's Redbook CDs are very good indeed. The old cigarette
commercials had it right (if I might be allowed to paraphrase) Digital's come
a long way, baby. Its not just the recording end that's improved either.
Today's D/A sections are much better than they were a decade ago.
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
Sonnova wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:10:25 -0800, Codifus wrote
> (in article <fh2pd102g77@news5.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>>mike mueller wrote:
>>
>>>This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
>>>Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
>>>between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
>>>just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
>>>pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
>>>analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
>>>difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
>>>different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
>>>my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
>>
>>That difference is not due to the mediums, though. Take that LP and
>>record it to digital with a good soundcard. Burn an audio CD. I bet if
>>you test that CD against the LP, no one will tell the difference. What
>>does that say?
>>
>>
>>>However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
>>>Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
>>>than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
>>>of DAT.
>>
>>Because, like all things, there's good and bad. There's bad digital
>>audio and good digital audio. After 20 some odd years digital audio is
>>reaching its mature stage, if it hasn't already. We've had mediums like
>>DVDA, SACD, great DA converters like the DAC1 etc. Pretty soon
>>everything in digital audio will be great. The onboard sound of your
>>cheap computer will eventually sound every bit as good as a DAC1.
>>
>> Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
>>
>>>tape instead of DAT.
>>
>>Pleasant euphonics of analog, that's all it is.
>>
>>>Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
>>>4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
>>>Thank you
>>>Mike Mueller
>>
>>Master
>
>
> Although I *believe* that I can hear more "air" around instruments and a
> richer, more "lifelike" ambience from a DSD recording than I can from the
> same performance recorded in Redbook, it's hardly scientific and I'd hate to
> bet the farm on being able to consistently pick which is which. The fact is
> that the best of today's Redbook CDs are very good indeed. The old cigarette
> commercials had it right (if I might be allowed to paraphrase) Digital's come
> a long way, baby. Its not just the recording end that's improved either.
> Today's D/A sections are much better than they were a decade ago.
Even though I've never listened to an SACD or DVD-A, I'm inclined to
beleive you about SACD sounding better than CD. I vaguely recall that
there is scientific evidence which shows that. SACD seems to handle
transients much better than CD and DVD-A, so much so that the DVD-A spec
was corrected with a better reconstruction filter technology I beleive
by Meridian to make it handle transients better. I wonder if that same
technology could be applied to CD, since DVD-A is prety much an
evolution of CD audio. Both are PCM with the difference being that DVD-A
has the larger word length and sampling rate.
CD
Sonnova wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:10:25 -0800, Codifus wrote
> (in article <fh2pd102g77@news5.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>>mike mueller wrote:
>>
>>>This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
>>>Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
>>>between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
>>>just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
>>>pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
>>>analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
>>>difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
>>>different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
>>>my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
>>
>>That difference is not due to the mediums, though. Take that LP and
>>record it to digital with a good soundcard. Burn an audio CD. I bet if
>>you test that CD against the LP, no one will tell the difference. What
>>does that say?
>>
>>
>>>However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
>>>Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
>>>than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
>>>of DAT.
>>
>>Because, like all things, there's good and bad. There's bad digital
>>audio and good digital audio. After 20 some odd years digital audio is
>>reaching its mature stage, if it hasn't already. We've had mediums like
>>DVDA, SACD, great DA converters like the DAC1 etc. Pretty soon
>>everything in digital audio will be great. The onboard sound of your
>>cheap computer will eventually sound every bit as good as a DAC1.
>>
>> Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
>>
>>>tape instead of DAT.
>>
>>Pleasant euphonics of analog, that's all it is.
>>
>>>Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
>>>4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
>>>Thank you
>>>Mike Mueller
>>
>>Master
>
>
> Although I *believe* that I can hear more "air" around instruments and a
> richer, more "lifelike" ambience from a DSD recording than I can from the
> same performance recorded in Redbook, it's hardly scientific and I'd hate to
> bet the farm on being able to consistently pick which is which. The fact is
> that the best of today's Redbook CDs are very good indeed. The old cigarette
> commercials had it right (if I might be allowed to paraphrase) Digital's come
> a long way, baby. Its not just the recording end that's improved either.
> Today's D/A sections are much better than they were a decade ago.
Even though I've never listened to an SACD or DVD-A, I'm inclined to
beleive you about SACD sounding better than CD. I vaguely recall that
there is scientific evidence which shows that. SACD seems to handle
transients much better than CD and DVD-A, so much so that the DVD-A spec
was corrected with a better reconstruction filter technology I beleive
by Meridian to make it handle transients better. I wonder if that same
technology could be applied to CD, since DVD-A is prety much an
evolution of CD audio. Both are PCM with the difference being that DVD-A
has the larger word length and sampling rate.
CD
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
Codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
> Even though I've never listened to an SACD or DVD-A, I'm inclined to
> beleive you about SACD sounding better than CD. I vaguely recall that
> there is scientific evidence which shows that.
There isn't.
> SACD seems to handle
> transients much better than CD and DVD-A, so much so that the DVD-A spec
> was corrected with a better reconstruction filter technology I beleive
> by Meridian to make it handle transients better.
Where'd you get this from?
This sounds like the old 'square wave' demo, or Pyramix advertising, both of
which are communly used in flawed arguments.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
> Even though I've never listened to an SACD or DVD-A, I'm inclined to
> beleive you about SACD sounding better than CD. I vaguely recall that
> there is scientific evidence which shows that.
There isn't.
> SACD seems to handle
> transients much better than CD and DVD-A, so much so that the DVD-A spec
> was corrected with a better reconstruction filter technology I beleive
> by Meridian to make it handle transients better.
Where'd you get this from?
This sounds like the old 'square wave' demo, or Pyramix advertising, both of
which are communly used in flawed arguments.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
mike mueller <cabinetmaker@earthlink,net > wrote:
> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that.
Two of the subejcts on the TV show were introduced as 'golden ear'
recording engineers. In aggregate they did no better than chance (though
there was no breakdown into individual scores)
> It's
> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
> difference.
Play a CD recording of that analog tape, and you probably won't.
> My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
> different on CD that it does on the LP.
That's due to a combination of different mastering and the inherent colorations
of LP playback.
> And those who have listened at
> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
> of DAT. Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
> tape instead of DAT.
DAT? Studios generally record to hard disc these days. And classical producers and musicians
were among the earliest and most fervent adopters of digital recordings.
> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
> Thank you
The audible output of any digital playback system is...analog. And an LP
most certainly does not accurately transmit all the '3 and 4th order harmonics'
of the 20-20kHz range.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
mike mueller <cabinetmaker@earthlink,net > wrote:
> This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
> Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
> between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that.
Two of the subejcts on the TV show were introduced as 'golden ear'
recording engineers. In aggregate they did no better than chance (though
there was no breakdown into individual scores)
> It's
> just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
> pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
> analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
> difference.
Play a CD recording of that analog tape, and you probably won't.
> My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
> different on CD that it does on the LP.
That's due to a combination of different mastering and the inherent colorations
of LP playback.
> And those who have listened at
> my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
> However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
> Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
> than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
> of DAT. Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
> tape instead of DAT.
DAT? Studios generally record to hard disc these days. And classical producers and musicians
were among the earliest and most fervent adopters of digital recordings.
> Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
> 4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
> Thank you
The audible output of any digital playback system is...analog. And an LP
most certainly does not accurately transmit all the '3 and 4th order harmonics'
of the 20-20kHz range.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fh066v0e9h@news3.newsguy,com
> I was just watching "Wired Science" on PBS. They just did
> a "shoot-out" between digital and analog sound. I'm not
> going to argue with the result, because they so
> screwed-up the way that they explained what they were
> doing to the TV audience as to make the entire thing
> worthless.
Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
behind this article:
Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
> First they introduced a recording engineer who's Chicago
> studio is all analog. He maintains that analog is better
> than digital (without defining WHAT he means by
> "digital").
No doubt, he didn't explain what he meant by better, either!
> Then they interviewed a recording engineer
> that thought that digital was better than analog (again
> without explaining WHAT kind of digital: 16/44.1, 24/96,
> DSD, MP3 whatever).
Probably 16/44.
> Then they thoroughly confused the
> issue by interchangeably using the terms MP3 and digital
> recording- as if they were one and the same.
MP3 is a subset of digital.
> Then they
> picked two other recording engineers and two musicians to
> listen to a cut from those same musicians' latest
> recording. Sometimes they were listening to analog,
> sometimes digital, and they held up paddles with the
> words "digital" and "analog" written on them, to show
> whenever they thought they heard a difference. The cut
> they played was contiguous with no breaks to indicate
> when or if the media had changed (how did they do THAT
> without editing the two together onto the same
> medium??!).
Good question. Not hard to do in the digital domain, but I've done similar
things with analog, and it takes a lot more skill and work.
> In the end, the two musicians chose correctly
> 53% of the time, and the two recording engineers chose
> correctly 55% of the time. In other words, essentially,
> statistically, no better than blind chance. The
> conclusion that the TV show producers came to was that
> digital is indistinguishable from analog.
Good digital and good analog are indistinguishable, so no surprise.
> This "test" basically just confuses the issue. They say
> that they were testing the widely held belief that analog
> sounds better than digital.
It's not a widely held belief.
> But what they don't
> differentiate between is PCM digital CD vs MP3.
Good MP3 outperforms LP and analog tape.
> The impression that I was left with is that they were saying
> that an analog master is statistically indistinguishable
> from an MP3 digital simply because they made no effort to
> differentiate between MP3 and RedBook PCM and never said
> what the listening "panel" was actually listening too, or
> the circumstances under which the "listening test" was
> conducted. "Wired Science"? Bogus science is more like it.
Compared to the article in Wired, it was really pretty good. ;-)
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fh066v0e9h@news3.newsguy,com
> I was just watching "Wired Science" on PBS. They just did
> a "shoot-out" between digital and analog sound. I'm not
> going to argue with the result, because they so
> screwed-up the way that they explained what they were
> doing to the TV audience as to make the entire thing
> worthless.
Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
behind this article:
Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
> First they introduced a recording engineer who's Chicago
> studio is all analog. He maintains that analog is better
> than digital (without defining WHAT he means by
> "digital").
No doubt, he didn't explain what he meant by better, either!
> Then they interviewed a recording engineer
> that thought that digital was better than analog (again
> without explaining WHAT kind of digital: 16/44.1, 24/96,
> DSD, MP3 whatever).
Probably 16/44.
> Then they thoroughly confused the
> issue by interchangeably using the terms MP3 and digital
> recording- as if they were one and the same.
MP3 is a subset of digital.
> Then they
> picked two other recording engineers and two musicians to
> listen to a cut from those same musicians' latest
> recording. Sometimes they were listening to analog,
> sometimes digital, and they held up paddles with the
> words "digital" and "analog" written on them, to show
> whenever they thought they heard a difference. The cut
> they played was contiguous with no breaks to indicate
> when or if the media had changed (how did they do THAT
> without editing the two together onto the same
> medium??!).
Good question. Not hard to do in the digital domain, but I've done similar
things with analog, and it takes a lot more skill and work.
> In the end, the two musicians chose correctly
> 53% of the time, and the two recording engineers chose
> correctly 55% of the time. In other words, essentially,
> statistically, no better than blind chance. The
> conclusion that the TV show producers came to was that
> digital is indistinguishable from analog.
Good digital and good analog are indistinguishable, so no surprise.
> This "test" basically just confuses the issue. They say
> that they were testing the widely held belief that analog
> sounds better than digital.
It's not a widely held belief.
> But what they don't
> differentiate between is PCM digital CD vs MP3.
Good MP3 outperforms LP and analog tape.
> The impression that I was left with is that they were saying
> that an analog master is statistically indistinguishable
> from an MP3 digital simply because they made no effort to
> differentiate between MP3 and RedBook PCM and never said
> what the listening "panel" was actually listening too, or
> the circumstances under which the "listening test" was
> conducted. "Wired Science"? Bogus science is more like it.
Compared to the article in Wired, it was really pretty good. ;-)
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:18:12 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fh2prk02gik@news5.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fh066v0e9h@news3.newsguy,com
>
>> I was just watching "Wired Science" on PBS. They just did
>> a "shoot-out" between digital and analog sound. I'm not
>> going to argue with the result, because they so
>> screwed-up the way that they explained what they were
>> doing to the TV audience as to make the entire thing
>> worthless.
>
> Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
> behind this article:
>
> Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
So. Vinyl is on the upswing. Lots of people like it. I enjoy a good LP
myself. At their best, they sound damn musical.
>> First they introduced a recording engineer who's Chicago
>> studio is all analog. He maintains that analog is better
>> than digital (without defining WHAT he means by
>> "digital").
>
> No doubt, he didn't explain what he meant by better, either!
>
>> Then they interviewed a recording engineer
>> that thought that digital was better than analog (again
>> without explaining WHAT kind of digital: 16/44.1, 24/96,
>> DSD, MP3 whatever).
>
> Probably 16/44.
>
>> Then they thoroughly confused the
>> issue by interchangeably using the terms MP3 and digital
>> recording- as if they were one and the same.
>
> MP3 is a subset of digital.
No clue?!! Really? They are not, however one and the same thing. All MP3
might be digital but not all digital is MP3. Not by a long shot. So, what's
your point? Further obfuscation?
>
>> Then they
>> picked two other recording engineers and two musicians to
>> listen to a cut from those same musicians' latest
>> recording. Sometimes they were listening to analog,
>> sometimes digital, and they held up paddles with the
>> words "digital" and "analog" written on them, to show
>> whenever they thought they heard a difference. The cut
>> they played was contiguous with no breaks to indicate
>> when or if the media had changed (how did they do THAT
>> without editing the two together onto the same
>> medium??!).
>
> Good question. Not hard to do in the digital domain, but I've done similar
> things with analog, and it takes a lot more skill and work.
That's kinda my point. Either way they are diluting the test to the point of
meaninglessness.
>> In the end, the two musicians chose correctly
>> 53% of the time, and the two recording engineers chose
>> correctly 55% of the time. In other words, essentially,
>> statistically, no better than blind chance. The
>> conclusion that the TV show producers came to was that
>> digital is indistinguishable from analog.
>
> Good digital and good analog are indistinguishable, so no surprise.
Again, not the point. The point is that this test, conducted as it was,
proved no point at all. The producers of the show claiming victory for
digital on the basis of this outcome is hollow and less than meaningless.
>
>> This "test" basically just confuses the issue. They say
>> that they were testing the widely held belief that analog
>> sounds better than digital.
>
> It's not a widely held belief.
Actually, it is. Lots of people believe it, that makes it "widely held". It
doesn't need to be a ubiquitous belief to be a widely held one.
>
>> But what they don't
>> differentiate between is PCM digital CD vs MP3.
>
> Good MP3 outperforms LP and analog tape.
Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd rather
listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
>> The impression that I was left with is that they were saying
>> that an analog master is statistically indistinguishable
>> from an MP3 digital simply because they made no effort to
>> differentiate between MP3 and RedBook PCM and never said
>> what the listening "panel" was actually listening too, or
>> the circumstances under which the "listening test" was
>> conducted. "Wired Science"? Bogus science is more like it.
>
> Compared to the article in Wired, it was really pretty good. ;-)
The article was someone's opinion a test is supposed to be unbiased.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:18:12 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fh2prk02gik@news5.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fh066v0e9h@news3.newsguy,com
>
>> I was just watching "Wired Science" on PBS. They just did
>> a "shoot-out" between digital and analog sound. I'm not
>> going to argue with the result, because they so
>> screwed-up the way that they explained what they were
>> doing to the TV audience as to make the entire thing
>> worthless.
>
> Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
> behind this article:
>
> Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
So. Vinyl is on the upswing. Lots of people like it. I enjoy a good LP
myself. At their best, they sound damn musical.
>> First they introduced a recording engineer who's Chicago
>> studio is all analog. He maintains that analog is better
>> than digital (without defining WHAT he means by
>> "digital").
>
> No doubt, he didn't explain what he meant by better, either!
>
>> Then they interviewed a recording engineer
>> that thought that digital was better than analog (again
>> without explaining WHAT kind of digital: 16/44.1, 24/96,
>> DSD, MP3 whatever).
>
> Probably 16/44.
>
>> Then they thoroughly confused the
>> issue by interchangeably using the terms MP3 and digital
>> recording- as if they were one and the same.
>
> MP3 is a subset of digital.
No clue?!! Really? They are not, however one and the same thing. All MP3
might be digital but not all digital is MP3. Not by a long shot. So, what's
your point? Further obfuscation?
>
>> Then they
>> picked two other recording engineers and two musicians to
>> listen to a cut from those same musicians' latest
>> recording. Sometimes they were listening to analog,
>> sometimes digital, and they held up paddles with the
>> words "digital" and "analog" written on them, to show
>> whenever they thought they heard a difference. The cut
>> they played was contiguous with no breaks to indicate
>> when or if the media had changed (how did they do THAT
>> without editing the two together onto the same
>> medium??!).
>
> Good question. Not hard to do in the digital domain, but I've done similar
> things with analog, and it takes a lot more skill and work.
That's kinda my point. Either way they are diluting the test to the point of
meaninglessness.
>> In the end, the two musicians chose correctly
>> 53% of the time, and the two recording engineers chose
>> correctly 55% of the time. In other words, essentially,
>> statistically, no better than blind chance. The
>> conclusion that the TV show producers came to was that
>> digital is indistinguishable from analog.
>
> Good digital and good analog are indistinguishable, so no surprise.
Again, not the point. The point is that this test, conducted as it was,
proved no point at all. The producers of the show claiming victory for
digital on the basis of this outcome is hollow and less than meaningless.
>
>> This "test" basically just confuses the issue. They say
>> that they were testing the widely held belief that analog
>> sounds better than digital.
>
> It's not a widely held belief.
Actually, it is. Lots of people believe it, that makes it "widely held". It
doesn't need to be a ubiquitous belief to be a widely held one.
>
>> But what they don't
>> differentiate between is PCM digital CD vs MP3.
>
> Good MP3 outperforms LP and analog tape.
Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd rather
listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
>> The impression that I was left with is that they were saying
>> that an analog master is statistically indistinguishable
>> from an MP3 digital simply because they made no effort to
>> differentiate between MP3 and RedBook PCM and never said
>> what the listening "panel" was actually listening too, or
>> the circumstances under which the "listening test" was
>> conducted. "Wired Science"? Bogus science is more like it.
>
> Compared to the article in Wired, it was really pretty good. ;-)
The article was someone's opinion a test is supposed to be unbiased.
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
Sonnova wrote:
.....
> Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
> good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
> can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd rather
> listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
....
There are good and bad MP3 encoders out there. The bad ones tend to be
fast, even at 320 kbps. Try hydrogen audio's LAME or even the
Fraunhoffer MP3 encoder inside CoolEdit. Both of these encoders do a
very good job of making MP3s. They take their time to process but the
results are really worth it if you want the best MP3s.
CD
Sonnova wrote:
.....
> Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
> good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
> can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd rather
> listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
....
There are good and bad MP3 encoders out there. The bad ones tend to be
fast, even at 320 kbps. Try hydrogen audio's LAME or even the
Fraunhoffer MP3 encoder inside CoolEdit. Both of these encoders do a
very good job of making MP3s. They take their time to process but the
results are really worth it if you want the best MP3s.
CD
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:36:00 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article <fh77h001f7g@news1.newsguy,com >):
> Sonnova wrote:
> .....
>> Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
>> good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
>> can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd
>> rather
>> listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
> ....
>
> There are good and bad MP3 encoders out there. The bad ones tend to be
> fast, even at 320 kbps. Try hydrogen audio's LAME or even the
> Fraunhoffer MP3 encoder inside CoolEdit. Both of these encoders do a
> very good job of making MP3s. They take their time to process but the
> results are really worth it if you want the best MP3s.
>
> CD
I don't want MP3s at all. I use Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) on my iPod.
Now, if only iPods had better D/A's and analog circuitry in them....
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:36:00 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article <fh77h001f7g@news1.newsguy,com >):
> Sonnova wrote:
> .....
>> Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
>> good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
>> can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd
>> rather
>> listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
> ....
>
> There are good and bad MP3 encoders out there. The bad ones tend to be
> fast, even at 320 kbps. Try hydrogen audio's LAME or even the
> Fraunhoffer MP3 encoder inside CoolEdit. Both of these encoders do a
> very good job of making MP3s. They take their time to process but the
> results are really worth it if you want the best MP3s.
>
> CD
I don't want MP3s at all. I use Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) on my iPod.
Now, if only iPods had better D/A's and analog circuitry in them....
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:36:00 -0800, Codifus wrote
> (in article <fh77h001f7g@news1.newsguy,com >):
> > Sonnova wrote:
> > .....
> >> Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
> >> good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
> >> can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd
> >> rather
> >> listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
> > ....
> >
> > There are good and bad MP3 encoders out there. The bad ones tend to be
> > fast, even at 320 kbps. Try hydrogen audio's LAME or even the
> > Fraunhoffer MP3 encoder inside CoolEdit. Both of these encoders do a
> > very good job of making MP3s. They take their time to process but the
> > results are really worth it if you want the best MP3s.
> >
> > CD
> I don't want MP3s at all. I use Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) on my iPod.
> Now, if only iPods had better D/A's and analog circuitry in them....
again, ipods have pretty good DAC and analog circuitry in the, check
out Stereophile's bench tests.
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:36:00 -0800, Codifus wrote
> (in article <fh77h001f7g@news1.newsguy,com >):
> > Sonnova wrote:
> > .....
> >> Irrelevant, immaterial, and also mostly untrue. I've never heard an LP or a
> >> good analog tape, for that matter make the kind of distorted mess that MP3s
> >> can make of music. MP3s made at a high data rate can sound OK, but I'd
> >> rather
> >> listen to an LP or especially a good recent CD of the same performance.
> > ....
> >
> > There are good and bad MP3 encoders out there. The bad ones tend to be
> > fast, even at 320 kbps. Try hydrogen audio's LAME or even the
> > Fraunhoffer MP3 encoder inside CoolEdit. Both of these encoders do a
> > very good job of making MP3s. They take their time to process but the
> > results are really worth it if you want the best MP3s.
> >
> > CD
> I don't want MP3s at all. I use Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) on my iPod.
> Now, if only iPods had better D/A's and analog circuitry in them....
again, ipods have pretty good DAC and analog circuitry in the, check
out Stereophile's bench tests.
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
Arny Krueger wrote:
> Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
> behind this article:
>
> Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
nice ref, thanks. :)
the title ("Vinyl May Be Final Nail
in CD's Coffin") is also very amusing
and afaik, the end of the 1st paragraph
is also very inaccurate: vinyl is NOT
re-entering the mainstream
i remember when the CD came out
the sound was terrible, but most
were beyond thrilled that ticks
and pops were gone
shows you just how much most people
don't care about quality sound
i can add that current CDs have improved
immensely, and that i hope that they don't
disappear anytime soon
bill
Arny Krueger wrote:
> Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
> behind this article:
>
> Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
nice ref, thanks. :)
the title ("Vinyl May Be Final Nail
in CD's Coffin") is also very amusing
and afaik, the end of the 1st paragraph
is also very inaccurate: vinyl is NOT
re-entering the mainstream
i remember when the CD came out
the sound was terrible, but most
were beyond thrilled that ticks
and pops were gone
shows you just how much most people
don't care about quality sound
i can add that current CDs have improved
immensely, and that i hope that they don't
disappear anytime soon
bill
Re: Analog vs Digital- Again
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:01:16 -0800, willbill wrote
(in article <fhddsc02t4v@news2.newsguy,com >):
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
>> behind this article:
>>
>> Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
>
> nice ref, thanks. :)
>
> the title ("Vinyl May Be Final Nail
> in CD's Coffin") is also very amusing
>
> and afaik, the end of the 1st paragraph
> is also very inaccurate: vinyl is NOT
> re-entering the mainstream
No. it is not. But it is still popular enough for places like Music Direct to
still sell it, and in my neck of the woods there is a High-End audio store
dedicated, exclusively to vinyl called "The Analog Room". They do quite
well.
> i remember when the CD came out
>
> the sound was terrible, but most
> were beyond thrilled that ticks
> and pops were gone
Yes. It was portable, did not degrade with each play, remained quiet and
wasn't nearly so fragile as records. These characteristics alone were pretty
much enough to insure its success with most consumers.
> shows you just how much most people
> don't care about quality sound
I doubt if the mainstream consumer cared anything more about sound quality
then than they do now. And given the popularity of MP3, I'd say that interest
is pretty close to zero.
> i can add that current CDs have improved
> immensely, and that i hope that they don't
> disappear anytime soon
I don't think that they are much danger of going away anytime soon. People
like to browse for music, read liner notes, and collect things. All of these
are things that internet-provided music doesn't allow for as easily or as
well as does the CD. And I agree that CD has improved immensely. If anything
ever kills SACD it would be that even hardened "golden-eared audiophiles"
begin to find it more and more difficult to tell a well made Redbook CD from
an SACD.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:01:16 -0800, willbill wrote
(in article <fhddsc02t4v@news2.newsguy,com >):
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Ah, the shoe is on the other foot. Do you want to comment on the scientice
>> behind this article:
>>
>> Wired Magazine article: http :// 301url,com /dbk
>
> nice ref, thanks. :)
>
> the title ("Vinyl May Be Final Nail
> in CD's Coffin") is also very amusing
>
> and afaik, the end of the 1st paragraph
> is also very inaccurate: vinyl is NOT
> re-entering the mainstream
No. it is not. But it is still popular enough for places like Music Direct to
still sell it, and in my neck of the woods there is a High-End audio store
dedicated, exclusively to vinyl called "The Analog Room". They do quite
well.
> i remember when the CD came out
>
> the sound was terrible, but most
> were beyond thrilled that ticks
> and pops were gone
Yes. It was portable, did not degrade with each play, remained quiet and
wasn't nearly so fragile as records. These characteristics alone were pretty
much enough to insure its success with most consumers.
> shows you just how much most people
> don't care about quality sound
I doubt if the mainstream consumer cared anything more about sound quality
then than they do now. And given the popularity of MP3, I'd say that interest
is pretty close to zero.
> i can add that current CDs have improved
> immensely, and that i hope that they don't
> disappear anytime soon
I don't think that they are much danger of going away anytime soon. People
like to browse for music, read liner notes, and collect things. All of these
are things that internet-provided music doesn't allow for as easily or as
well as does the CD. And I agree that CD has improved immensely. If anything
ever kills SACD it would be that even hardened "golden-eared audiophiles"
begin to find it more and more difficult to tell a well made Redbook CD from
an SACD.
