[TheGhostWhoWalks]

I was listening to Reimyo setup yesterday and thinking to myself: "Can it get any better than this"? Well, yes it can because I know it can (I still have many pieces of my uber system left to be completed).

But this got me thinking, as good as the best in digital sounds - especially players like the Reimyo and the best two boxers out there like the Esoteric D01/P01, EMM/Meitner combo, Wadia 27ix/270 SE w/Statement mods, The Zanden gear, etc. - has digital finally caught up to the best in analog? I know that the best turntables still offer that special magic... But I'm starting to think that the best digital out there has a certian mojo all its own that's pretty darn special.

 

[brian183]

I can see digital audio getting better and better in terms of closeness to analog. The analog way of doing things is definitely beneficial but people just have to realize that everything in this world quantisized.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian183 I can see digital audio getting better and better in terms of closeness to analog. The analog way of doing things is definitely beneficial but people just have to realize that everything in this world quantisized.

Digital has been getting better and better for years. I really think it was the Linn Sondek CD12 that finally woke people up to the possibility that CD players could one day be as good as the best in analog. But I've yet to hear a turntable that truly "bests" my Reimyo in terms of audio playback. Some that equal it? Yes. But there comes the ol' "which do you prefer?" thing into play.

 

[bigshot]

Digital has certainly become as complicated... probably moreso. As for sound quality, I think that has more to do with engineering than equipment.

See ya
Steve

 

[jp11801]

So far standard redbook has not caught up with analog to my ears. I have heard the Meridian G08, Berendsen, Sonys SACD-1( the big flagship oneI may have gotten the model wrong)... None of the players present the realism that a good vinyl rig can provide. They are quiter but the music is not presented as well IMHO. I think CD can do slam a bit better and is lower noise. Vinyl is better with dimensionality you feel the performer presence better and soundstages better.
I do not have enough experience with SACD or DVD-A to speak to those formats as I have only heard them once.

 

[Garbz]

I think i see 3 people talking apples and oranges, and one bigshot hitting the nail on the head.

The best sound I've ever heard was from a red-book cdplayer. Not because of any reason other then a $20000 mature cdplayer craps all over a technology like DVD-A and SACD which have not yet come to realise their true potental (but they will definitly with time).

Analogue is mastered in a way to prevent loosing details to the high noise floor. This was the problem with early digital recordings is that old methods were still used. Both formats are now mature. Both formats now sound excellent. And neither format needs to "Catch up" to the other. Any differences you still hear between even the most perfect of sources is one engineer doing what he must to get the best sound from vinyl, and another doing something completely different to get the best sound from a cd.

 

[markl]

I assume we are talking about comparing two hypothetical "ideal" analog and digital systems? Obviously, the best analog can trounce the worst digital and vice versa, and it gets muddy in between.

I think the limitation and only reason analog can still even be in the race is in the encoding scheme of most digital, not in the technology of digital itself. When we can finally move beyond 16/44.1 as a standard, then yes, I would think digital can finally be said to whomp analog's butt. The new formats are great, but they failed to catch on, and are just a tantalizing glimpse at a possible future. Maybe the next attempt with some as-yet unknown format will be THE ONE, unless digital downloading dooms us all to sub Redbook originals.

 

[bigshot]

In production, analogue is just about wiped out. I was at a recording studio a couple of weeks ago and I saw a 24 track out and set up and commented on it. The engineer said that he had pulled it out to VSO some digital tracks that someone had brought him that didn't sync up properly.

See ya
Steve

 

[Revliskciuq]

Who ever said the purpose of digital audio was to emulate analog audio?

 

[Comrade Penguin]

I think there was a time in the past when CD was "catching up" with vinyl in that even those who prefer the native qualities of CD could find an turntable that would suit them better for the same price. I don't think that is the case anymore and whilst I try and buy as much as I can on vinyl that is because I prefer it's sound and am forgiving to things such as pops and crackles. It is much like the argument between solid state and valves. Both can be brilliant and reach a level where they're incredible but most of us can't afford that. It is more about at the price point you can afford which have flaws that sound better to you. In my case that is vinyl by quite a hefty margin but for others it may be CD. Just like some like Grados others like Sennys. We are so far from ever truely recreating the sound made by an instrument or voice with our current recording methods and Hi-Fi that claiming one or other is closer to the real thing is silly. Just a matter of what you like.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz I think i see 3 people talking apples and oranges, and one bigshot hitting the nail on the head.

Huh?

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz The best sound I've ever heard was from a red-book cdplayer. Not because of any reason other then a $20000 mature cdplayer craps all over a technology like DVD-A and SACD which have not yet come to realise their true potental (but they will definitly with time).

I believe hardware technology of redbook, DVD-A, SACD, and analogue are all "mature enough." IF the recording is done well (Big If), all 4 formats are capable of sounding good enough to raise goosebumps.

The fact vast majority of recordings sound so-so (even records and SACD) is a testament to the fact record companies simply don't give a s*&* about sound quality. What's even sadder is that your average consumer doesn't care, either. Even MP3's are considered good enough.

At the recent SoCal Head-Fi meet, I was able to compare Lavry Black, AQVox, Benchmark DAC-1, and Apogee DAC's. The differences were subtle among them, but the well-recorded songs sounded fantastic through all of them, while the poorly-recorded songs sounded poor even through the best DAC present. The quality of recording matters SO MUCH more than hardware, it's not even funny.

What happens if you compare great recordings on all formats? Original 24 bit 192kHz DVD-A recordings, recorded well, played through competent DVD-A players will simply boggle your mind. I'm talking about the type of recorded source that is so good, you don't need any special, espensive gear to taste God. Is this ever going to be reality for general consumers? Never.

 

[Garbz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGhostWhoWalks Huh?

What I was trying to say here, digital can't "Catch up" with analoge at all. This used to be a logical idea back when digital sucked, but nowadays the formats sound different because of the different process used to create them. Each has it's own signature, but neither can really be considered superior to the other, only that people can state their preference to one.


I would hardly consider SACD mature seeing how it's only been around for a few years. I'm not talking mature as in sounds fantastic mature, i'm talking about milking the absolute last ounce of minute detail possible from the format. IMHO CDs have only just done that, but the extra overhead for DVD-A and SACD mean the equipment as some way to come before we hit the quality ceiling from these discs.

That said it's very true about the poor quality recordings. I don't need a nice source to hear that my Carla Lotha CD runs rings around the Santana Sharman DVD-A.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L I believe hardware technology of redbook, DVD-A, SACD, and analogue are all "mature enough." IF the recording is done well (Big If), all 4 formats are capable of sounding good enough to raise goosebumps. The fact vast majority of recordings sound so-so (even records and SACD) is a testament to the fact record companies simply don't give a s*&* about sound quality. What's even sadder is that your average consumer doesn't care, either. Even MP3's are considered good enough. At the recent SoCal Head-Fi meet, I was able to compare Lavry Black, AQVox, Benchmark DAC-1, and Apogee DAC's. The differences were subtle among them, but the well-recorded songs sounded fantastic through all of them, while the poorly-recorded songs sounded poor even through the best DAC present. The quality of recording matters SO MUCH more than hardware, it's not even funny. What happens if you compare great recordings on all formats? Original 24 bit 192kHz DVD-A recordings, recorded well, played through competent DVD-A players will simply boggle your mind. I'm talking about the type of recorded source that is so good, you don't need any special, espensive gear to taste God. Is this ever going to be reality for general consumers? Never.

I don't mean to derail my own thread, but the girl in your avatar is very distracting.

 

[wang228]

jon l: "The quality of recording matters SO MUCH more than hardware, it's not even funny. "


so true ....