![]() |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote: [Snip] Add BBC FM to that from about the 1970s. yes, it ws interesting to note the reaction from those who complained about "digital sound" when CDs first were broadcast when they were told that they'd been getting digital sound for years via the BBC's PCVM distribution system. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 08/11/2011 16:44, Bill Wright wrote:
Rob wrote: There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of a musical event. And the explanation as 'distortion' is not helpful, IMO. Not helpful to a particular belief system, or faith? Hardly a system, or indeed faith - just listening to and enjoying music! Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article om,
Rob wrote: On 08/11/2011 16:44, Bill Wright wrote: Rob wrote: There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of a musical event. And the explanation as 'distortion' is not helpful, IMO. Not helpful to a particular belief system, or faith? Hardly a system, or indeed faith - just listening to and enjoying music! "Still, I never did care for the music much, it's the high fidelity." Flanders & Swan c1960. nothing (or everything) changes -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"Rob" wrote
I think it captures what's necessary. Which makes it all the more weird. I've got a good deal of my music on a computer nowadays. I've long forgotten which are from CD, which digitised from LP. And while at first listen they both sound 'hifi', it's pretty obvious which is preferable. And not just to me. Is this another thing that could have been worded better? because it looks like another bit of self-contradiction to me. You've forgotten which are which, yet its obvious which is preferable? Are you saying that you have both (commercial) CD and digitised vinyl versions of the same original recording on your computer and that, although you've forgotten which is which you know which you prefer? If you've forgotten which is which how do you know which version you prefer? David. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Bob Latham wrote:
If so, then you have to agree that pleasing your ears is an important part of listening to Hi-Fi / music. That being the case, why is it not valid to say that, for what ever reason, I enjoy the sound of LP rather more than anything digital? It is valid! But that is NOT what most of those people say. They say "analogue is better". Spot the difference? There's a massive difference between "I prefer analogue" and "analogue is better". The latter is an assertion that can be subject to objective testing. Set the criteria; make the measurements; compare and contrast. By almost all OBJECTIVE criteria analogue audio recordings are NOT better than digital ones. Which, of course, has nothing to do with what you, or I, might personally prefer. That is a SUBJECTIVE assessment, and thus entirely different. -- SteveT |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Before you can do any subjective comparisons, you would need to hear a single live instrument in a room and record it with a mic close to your ear - then reproduce with a loudspeaker in the same room. Even that is questionable. Assuming your electrical bits are "perfect", then you want the microphones to be placed where the loudspeakers will be during playback. Thus the loudspeakers can reproduce exactly what the microphones heard, at exactly the same place. I suppose microphones placed at your ears would require loudspeakers placed at your ears - open-backed headphones, maybe? -- SteveT |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Bob Latham wrote:
Yes, I've just remembered why I don't partake here much . You (collective) think CD players all sound the same don't you? They have differences in their analogue circuitry. Also, D-A converters are not all perfect - their conversions may have non-linearities or inaccuracies. Having said all that, I bet you'd be damn hard pressed to hear the difference between most cheap and expensive CD players, assuming everything else in the chain is identical. Fancy doing a statistically valid blind hearing test? -- SteveT |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Bob Latham wrote:
I've recently had an identical mp3 file on my synology NAS box and on a data stick. Both of these files are accessible from my blu-ray player which outputs the data as spdif to my AV8. They sound quite different. Thinking this must be something to do with the way the BD is retrieving the data I thought try another nas. So I downloaded some server software for a PC and got my PC 'doing a NAS' with the same file. Different again. The synology as far as I know is serving in the same way as the PC UPNP? Something like that. The Synology has quite a bit more bass than either of the other two. Not better but different and I don't know why. Bob, I don't believe you! I am NOT suggesting you are lying, but I AM suggesting you are mistaken. I'd bet a week's wages that you could not hear any difference when the tests were done scientifically - double-blinded, randomised, a statistically valid sample size. Of course, we'll never actually do that test, so my bet is moot. But I am so confident in the laws of physics that I simply don't believe there is any difference in the reproduced sound depending on whether it's coming out of a NAS or a data stick. It's simply absurd. -- SteveT |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article , Steve Thackery
wrote: Bob Latham wrote: I've recently had an identical mp3 file on my synology NAS box and on a data stick. Both of these files are accessible from my blu-ray player which outputs the data as spdif to my AV8. They sound quite different. Thinking this must be something to do with the way the BD is retrieving the data I thought try another nas. So I downloaded some server software for a PC and got my PC 'doing a NAS' with the same file. Different again. The synology as far as I know is serving in the same way as the PC UPNP? Something like that. The Synology has quite a bit more bass than either of the other two. Not better but different and I don't know why. Bob, I don't believe you! I am NOT suggesting you are lying, but I AM suggesting you are mistaken. but he might have a gold plated oxygen-free cable in one of the signal paths. Or a Russ Andrews' special somewhere. I'd bet a week's wages that you could not hear any difference when the tests were done scientifically - double-blinded, randomised, a statistically valid sample size. Of course, we'll never actually do that test, so my bet is moot. But I am so confident in the laws of physics that I simply don't believe there is any difference in the reproduced sound depending on whether it's coming out of a NAS or a data stick. It's simply absurd. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Rob wrote:
One way to explain what that experience is might be the influence of distortion. Other ways might be harmonics, or the possible a variable that science has yet to consider/uncover. Harmonics IS distortion. If anything sounds different from the original, in any way, then it is a distorted version of the original. How else can it be made different without distorting it? There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of a musical event. Yes, yes, but that isn't in dispute! The argument is not whether some people prefer analogue recordings, it's whether analogue recordings are better. The latter is objectively measureable. The former isn't, nor can it be disputed. -- SteveT |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk