[old tech]

Analog systems are by nature minimum-phased.
He is eccentric and very intelligent, so you need to interpret his words the right way. Imagine vinyl didn't exist and nobody knew how it sounds. Technically vinyl is crappy (hey, it's old as hell invented in times when digital sound was utopia), but people just like the crappiness.

Or to put it another way, if we had to design a new music format from scratch with what we know today, does anyone really think we would come up with the vinyl record?

 

[skwoodwiva]

Disagree as to what exactly? You don't agree that it's okay to prefer vinyl? As to the other things I mentioned in that post those are pretty much facts rather than opinions I or you can deny just like that. Good luck demonstrating that vinyl is more precise than CDs for example.



People correct autocorrect more than autocorrect corrects people…

You left out a crucial choicechoice :
Your's are not fact but rather like dogmatic opinions.
That is where you err.

 

[colonelkernel8]

You left out a crucial choicechoice :
Your's are not fact but rather like dogmatic opinions.
That is where you err.

No. What he states are facts that have been proven empirically. The very opposite of dogmatism.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Not sure what you mean by digital sounding digital as it is a transparent way to record, store and playback music. Most of my vinyl collection has been digitised and they sound identical to the record being played back on the same stereo with the same donor turntable.

Pre-ringing is another figment of the digiphobe's imagination, just like jitter. I can understand the love of vinyl records, I like records too but what amazes me with some of the more evangelist vinylphiles is that they have such super sensitive hearing to be able to hear inaudible levels of pre ringing, supersonic artifacts, jitter and so on yet seem unable to hear audible levels of wow and flutter, non-linear frequency responses, phase shifts, inner groove distortion and so on. The other misconception is comparing analog with digital rather than format or equipment. I mean analog can sound great, but objectively, vinyl is inferior to analog tape. Are two cans connected with a tight piece of string high fidelity? After all, it is a purer form of analog than convering the acoustic energy to electrical or mechanical energy.

If they’re “audiophile” cans with a single-crystal-copper string connecting them then someone will claim they sound better than CD.

 

[skwoodwiva]

No. What he states are facts that have been proven empirically. The very opposite of dogmatism.[/
.

Not proven. You all assume it is coloring. It is artifacts that annoy my enjoyment. Vinyl is colored but digital is worst than colored. DSD is the most tolerable of that lot.
I joined here to post the facts of a lot study revealing that .1% or perhaps more of males, had an unusual hearing acuity.
This accounts to be a subset of the audiophiles is the "heart & soul " of them. The ones at the drop of a hat spend lots of money on equipment.

I am poor, at most I may earn the top blue collar wage. Yet I have spent 25K on stuff without a reason? Can youyou belie plain faced testimony?

 

[colonelkernel8]

Not proven. You all assume it is coloring. It is artifacts that annoy my enjoyment. Vinyl is colored but digital is worst than colored. DSD is the most tolerable of that lot.
I joined here to post the facts of a lot study revealing that .1% or perhaps more of males, had an unusual hearing acuity.
This accounts to be a subset of the audiophiles is the "heart & soul " of it.

You don't have magical "golden ears", I think you implied yourself that you were 60 years of age. If you can hear about 15 kHz, I'd be ASTONISHED.

You're quite simply wrong, utterly wrong about digital audio. You can prefer the sound of vinyl all you like, but any claim that digital has audible "artifacts" is a damned lie.

Let's see your study results, or are you just making up this "0.1%" figure?

 

[skwoodwiva]

You don't have magical "golden ears", I think you implied yourself that you were 60 years of age. If you can hear about 15 kHz, I'd be ASTONISHED.

You're quite simply wrong, utterly wrong about digital audio. You can prefer the sound of vinyl all you like, but any claim that digital has audible "artifacts" is a damned lie.

Let's see your study results, or are you just making up this "0.1%" figure?

Troll I am not
Time will tell. I the mean time please , lets agree to respect the plain meaning of a post

 

[71 dB]

You left out a crucial choicechoice :
Your's are not fact but rather like dogmatic opinions.
That is where you err.

Interesting. I'm all ears to listen to you proving my dogmatic opinions wrong. I change my mind when I see hard evidence.

 

[71 dB]

Or to put it another way, if we had to design a new music format from scratch with what we know today, does anyone really think we would come up with the vinyl record?

I almost said that myself, so thanks for doing it for me.

 

[skwoodwiva]

Interesting. I'm all ears to listen to you proving my dogmatic opinions wrong. I change my mind when I see hard evidence.

You are one of the best here, reasonable...

 

[bigshot]

Troll I am not
Time will tell. I the mean time please , lets agree to respect the plain meaning of a post

I have one request... Before you hit post, please take a quick look at what you're posting and make sure you're providing some sort of content. Just posting babble gets tiresome and people will tend to start ignoring you.

 

[71 dB]

Vinyl is colored but digital is worst than colored. DSD is the most tolerable of that lot.

Digital audio has it's "problems" such as jitter and non-linearities of ADCs and DACs, but unless you use the worst digital audio gear on the planet, these are literally microscopic colourizations compared to vinyl records.

I am poor, at most I may earn the top blue collar wage. Yet I have spent 25K on stuff without a reason? Can youyou belie plain faced testimony?

The more money you have, the more you can afford wasting money because of ignorance. You have had your reasons to spent 25K and that's your business. I'm not here to judge your purchases (whatever they are). I am here to talk about what I know and understand.

 

[71 dB]

You are one of the best here, reasonable...

Hah, I'm afraid you are too new of a member to have seen what kind of controversy my opinions about crossfeed have caused here.

 

[tansand]

So, we need to select high enough sampling frequency and enough dynamic range to make these two problems "disappear for our ears." When you understand these things, digital audio starts to look very elegant compared to plastic disk scratching.

Well, I was just commenting on the aesthetic elegance or not of the respective methods, I think there's room for both views. The needle is made of diamond, after all, and 20:1 step up transformers are undeniably aesthetically pleasing, imo.

"Impulse like signals" mean signals that last a few samples. What instruments create such signals and even if they did, spatial cues (reflections, reverberation etc.) smears it down to something that is non-impulse-like. Even if you have impulse-like-signals (Autechre might use them), temporal masking of ear will smear them. As I said, the filter changes the width of the sound just a little bit.

At this point I don't think I've ever heard any different filters, as I've always stuck with 44.1 khz 16 bit. Lmao.

So, what happened is that once a long time ago, I decided I heard a difference between two identical files I thought were diffferent, so I believed they were different for years, and when I checked again the other day, I definitely heard they WERE different.

Having experienced this, I find it fascinating. There is clearly a 'band' of subjectivity within which I can determine things sound this way or that.

 

[71 dB]

At this point I don't think I've ever heard any different filters, as I've always stuck with 44.1 khz 16 bit. Lmao.

I was talking about different reconstruction filters at 44100 Hz sampling frequency. At higher sampling frequencies (upsampling to 96 kHz/192 kHz) I can't hear any change. How could I, since the changes happen at ultrasonic frequencies?

So, what happened is that once a long time ago, I decided I heard a difference between two identical files I thought were diffferent, so I believed they were different for years, and when I checked again the other day, I definitely heard they WERE different.

Having experienced this, I find it fascinating. There is clearly a 'band' of subjectivity within which I can determine things sound this way or that.

That's placebo and I have experienced it too.