Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[Deleted member 56560]

Blind tests achieve virtually nothing. Well they do mislead almost as much as the famous placebo effect. Controlled testing does not work - for reasons I've outlined somewhere here. The thought of transferring my records to inferior digital horrifies me. The belief in the technical superiority of digital is a curious religious belief. It is clearly superior in every way except it produces two-dimensional unlistenable facsimilies of music. In that sense it beats everything even cassette tape hands down.

 

[JP]

Blind tests achieve virtually nothing. Well they do mislead almost as much as the famous placebo effect. Controlled testing does not work - for reasons I've outlined somewhere here. The thought of transferring my records to inferior digital horrifies me. The belief in the technical superiority of digital is a curious religious belief. It is clearly superior in every way except it produces two-dimensional unlistenable facsimilies of music. In that sense it beats everything even cassette tape hands down.

Ever done any?

 

[Deleted member 56560]

backups?
View attachment 263651

backups ... so many lost backups

 

[Inner Space]

Blind tests achieve virtually nothing. Well they do mislead almost as much as the famous placebo effect. Controlled testing does not work - for reasons I've outlined somewhere here. The thought of transferring my records to inferior digital horrifies me. The belief in the technical superiority of digital is a curious religious belief. It is clearly superior in every way except it produces two-dimensional unlistenable facsimilies of music.

1983 called and wants its BS back.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

Ever done any?

Controlled listening test. Years of these to confirm their extreme limitation. The published work is very low standard except in J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. and even there it is limited and of little value. In my opinion of course

 

[JP]

Controlled listening test. Years of these to confirm their extreme limitation. The published work is very low standard except in J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. and even there it is limited and of little value. In my opinion of course

You have an interesting habit of not actually answering questions. Have YOU ever done proper controlled listening tests?

 

[Deleted member 56560]

1983 called and wants its BS back.

1983 - the sad days of the birth of fake digital "perfect sound forever" ? I am puzzled why 1983?

 

[Deleted member 56560]

You have an interesting habit of not actually answering questions. Have YOU ever done proper controlled listening tests?

Yes. Off to watch a very poor film.

 

[Xulonn]

So you're not here to learn then?

Elements of this discussion bring to mind a word I know, but seldom use:

pon·tif·i·cate
verb
/pänˈtifəˌkāt/

1. 1.
   express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.

 

[DonR]

backups ... so many lost backups

Are you blaming the technology for your own organizational failings?

 

[Bob from Florida]

How?

Turntable improvements. I like the ceramic magnetic bearing on my Clearaudio table. I don't think that was available 40 years ago. Technics is boasting about their new direct drive motor. It does seem like there has been some progress with designs and materials used. If vinyl was not selling, I doubt there would have been any "innovation".

 

[JP]

Yes. Off to watch a very poor film.

And, what? The results didn't support what you wanted to believe so therefore it's all nonsense, and you managed to find stuff on the internet to support that view?

Why are you here again?

 

[JP]

Turntable improvements. I like the ceramic magnetic bearing on my Clearaudio table. I don't think that was available 40 years ago. Technics is boasting about their new direct drive motor. It does seem like there has been some progress with designs and materials used. If vinyl was not selling, I doubt there would have been any "innovation".

Different ways to do things don't equate to improvements. Competent bearings on 'tables have existed for decades and Technics' new motors don't show any meaningful improvements over their old ones.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Different ways to do things don't equate to improvements. Competent bearings on 'tables have existed for decades and Technics' new motors don't show any meaningful improvements over their old ones.

Do you think it is all "marketing"?

 

[Inner Space]

1983 - the sad days of the birth of fake digital "perfect sound forever" ? I am puzzled why 1983?

Because 1983 was the first time I heard (more or less word for word) the sentiments you just expressed. Back then the sad, desperate analog gurus were worried about loss of income and status ... what's your reason? To be cool and special?

In 1983 I already had 6 years in studios - probably more than 10,000 hours by then of constantly - literally hundreds of times a day - comparing live and recorded sound. Folks with my job were ecstatic with digital and CD.

I get that being all edgy and contrarian is a good feeling for some. To imagine that you possess secret knowledge and secret truths is exciting, I know. But here you're dealing with people who actually know things, who have actually done things, and who aren't really interested in 40-year-old nonsense being repeated as new.

 

[JP]

Do you think it is all "marketing"?

I can't say that everything is all marketing, but I can say that I haven't see anything that moves the needle toward mitigating inherent flaws. What is the actual improvement of your ceramic bearing? How much more speed stable are Technics new motors?

 

[Deleted member 56560]

Because 1983 was the first time I heard (more or less word for word) the sentiments you just expressed. Back then the sad, desperate analog gurus were worried about loss of income and status ... what's your reason? To be cool and special?

In 1983 I already had 6 years in studios - probably more than 10,000 hours by then of constantly - literally hundreds of times a day - comparing live and recorded sound. Folks with my job were ecstatic with digital and CD.

I get that being all edgy and contrarian is a good feeling for some. To imagine that you possess secret knowledge and secret truths is exciting, I know. But here you're dealing with people who actually know things, who have actually done things, and who aren't really interested in 40-year-old nonsense being repeated as new.

I admit I am making quite plain statements. A bit provocative. I note some say "it is colouration" "digital is accurate, essentially perfect." I have listened to this for years. To me it is nonsense. This does not mean I need a lesson in politeness or indeed in contrary beliefs from people who "know things" or have "done things". I am just stating it like I see it. But I am happy to explain why I make such statements. I think that challenges to the digital miasma are very much needed. To talk of music lovers as analog gurus is hardly sensitive or constructive. Ecstatic with CD! Heavens above. I do wish I could be, I'd sell my turntable tomorrow. Can't stand it. Just saying.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

Are you blaming the technology for your own organizational failings?

yes I admit it

 

[RCAguy]

It is meaningless to opine that a single recording represents an entire medium or the other re sound quality. A well-made recording on vinyl may well sound better than a poor digital recording, and vice versa. Objectively, digital recording & reproduction can be better than any analog, but each can be limited or stellar due to many other factors. For any medium, the biggest limitation besides the recording quality is likely playback acoustics, which few people understand or do anything about.

 

[krabapple]

Hi. Yes, well we have our preferences. Digital is generally awful, at CD quality anyway. My point was Green showed that statistically reliable discrimination of DIFFERENT was only achieved by weeks and even months of training. These were not complex time-varying sounds, but steady-state flat spectrum apart from one or two harmonics raised in level. I think one important point was his listeners in any one experimental session (< 1 hour) built up an auditory image of the 'standard' sound against which to compare the 'changed sound'. The point is these sessions and reliable performance takes a long time. By using simple sounds Green could say that listeners were detecting a change in a spectral profile. Now take complex time-varying sounds and untrained listeners and you're very far from experimental control, or saying anything useful about what listeners interpret as "quality". And yes I am offended by digital audio - its personal. It ruined my record collecting in the 1980s and I've hundreds of poor sounding digitally mastered records (the CDs I gave to Oxfam and plan to do the same with all those awful Phillips 'digitally remastered" records).

You might want to point us to this Dave Green, Profile Analysis monograph. It sounds like a doozy.

And 'complex time varying' signals will very likely mask some differences that can be discerned between bespoke 'simple signals' -- that's basic psychoacoustics. Which argues against your point.

I guess you are claiming to be a trained listener who can detect....what, exactly? Comparing different masterings -- such as a commercial CD to its older LP version -- does not isolate the variable 'CD rate digital' , meaning you can't ascribe whatever hatefulness you perceive, to it conclusively. Better you should record the playback output of your favorite LP on your favorite turntable and preamp , to 44/16 digital, and set up a rigorous blind comparison (a far from easy task, given the two technologies involved).