Why is "digital" a dirty word?

Who would be foolish enough to try to engage in a meaningful discussion with him.

This reminds me of the guy I was trying to get some local info from in Los Angeles County, until I notice that his hat was lined with aluminum foil.

 

It isn't a dirty word.

 

i don't think it's a problem. I think it's actually a solution to a problem.

 

OK, so no records sound as good as CD's? Fair enough. Lets continue without having that debate I guess. Its up there with MAC V PC's.

 

it gets unnecessarily diluted by conversion. that being said, i do enjoy older records on CD or in FLAC. I just happen to think it's not a truthful representation of the music as something gets lost in ones and zeroes.

 

I definitely have some records that are superior to the CD. Usually this has to do with the master. I have found so long as the format is competent (IE, is at least 16-bit 44.1 Khz digital or good quality vinyl), the medium on which it is delivered has less to do with the quality than the quality of the master on the format.

 

Far less than it does by mediums that require physical contact such as tape and vinyl.
The thing with digital is that it IS a true representation of whatever is analog that is translated to digital. Analog storage of music is quite tainted by the physical contact of the medium. Tape colors music. Vinyl colors music. With digital, what goes in is exactly what comes out.
That some prefer the sound of music that is colored by the medium rather than music that is less affected by it is another issue..................

 

Color is music. Its all part of it.

 

Exactly. I prefer paintings that are in their original form, not ones with a tinted film over them.

 

I think sunspot42 was referring to the intrinsic fidelity of the medium. Surely no one on this forum believes that either an LP or a CD can't sound just as bad as incompetent mastering, other processing and manufacturing can make it sound.

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

This doesn't reflect on the accuracy of the format being used, but on the competency of those using it.
If a factory churns out bad cars because of incompetency of those who maintain and run the machinery, that doesn't mean the cars design is bad.

 

Something's not right there drfunk. Your LPs should be blowing most of your digital recordings out of the water. You have in your collection of records an incredible wealth of high resolution audio that will probably never be able to be equalled by any current digital format or media. The unfortunate reality however is that you really have to spend some cash on some higher-end analog gear to get the real unparalleled sonic treats that are in the grooves of your records. An Ortofon OM-30 is just not going to do it, and your tonearm is really too short to track records well enough by keeping that cantilever and stylus alligned with the record with minimal error [tracking error causes a lot of problems.] I'm really not dissing your analog set-up, because I'm sure it sounds "good." But I think you will be seriously blown away when you find out how much information really is in those record grooves.

Get a high-end low-output moving coil cartridge (I wouldn't recommend even considering anything less than $1000.00 for a cartridge) along with a good phono preamp and get your hands on a longer (meaning better tracking) high calibre tonearm. You will also need a decent record cleaning machine too. I know it sucks thinking of spending all that cash, but when you have a $25,000.00 plus record collection like you do, it's a no-brainer.

I really hope that everyone on this forum gets to hear analog done right in their lifetime! It's quite an experience. Just to set the record straight, I really do appreciate the joys of high resolution digital also, so I'm not saying digital is a dirty word. It's just that analog done right can exceed the sonic merits of current digital playback, but I'm hopeful that digital has a very analog future.

 

It's funny, when CDs were all the rage in the 80's there were three different levels of 'digital' -- AAD, ADD, and DDD, with DDD being assumed to be the best. Then somewhere in the 90's, as folks began to sour on the digitalization of music these classifications disappeared from CD cases. It became hip to advertise that the record music on an analog equipment.

 

I think you'd be surprised at what some believe around here.

 

Except that's probably not the reason the codes disappeared.

 

Some digital is fine.
Some analog is fine.
Some analog doesn't sound good.
Some digital sounds outrageous but... most all digital 'wears me out' after a couple CDs. I don't know why that is, but it does.

Analog has the "Cosmic Energy"!

"don't worry, be happy!"

 

OK, why did they disappear?

 

Probably because they weren't accurate or were no longer appropriate for many recordings. How many major label recordings are analog these days?

 

Bad musicians playing poor songs are poor.

Good musicians playing bad songs can sometimes work.

Bad musicians playing good songs can sometimes work.

Good musicians playing good music always sounds good.

Music recorded via a tin can, connected to a tin can in the studio via a piece of worn string, won't sound good no matter what you do with it.

Music recorded by a competent engineer with good production will most often sound good.

I listen to vast majority of music via CD because I like the sound, it's plenty warm and detailed.

CD is not intrinsically better than Vinyl except in specific circumstances.

Some music isn't suited to Vinyl - playing a five hour piece by Morton Feldman where silence passages are vital, is madness on Vinyl, imo.

The vast majority of music made in the last 20 years was made digital at the time it was recorded.

I grew up in the 70's, with Vinyl.

Music is not made bad just because it's pressed to a CD which accommodates the full spectrum of human hearing. If you have bat hearing, the debate may be on.

Music is not made good just by pressing it onto Vinyl.

I have 1000's of CD's, and I have maybe 6 which are brickwalled. I don't buy much, if any, rock. I never buy pop.

I have never heard a Jazz CD that has been affected by the so-called Loudness Wars.

I have only heard one Classical disc I feel is brickwalled (Big Beautiful and Scary by Bang on a Can). I queried it with the label (the always great Canteloupe) - and they seemed to think I was mad. All the others discs by the label I've bought (in excess of 30), have sounded reference quality to my ears.

I bought the "En Trance" reissue from SPV (Klaus Schulze). On hearing it I was aghast - it was obvious it was brickwalled. Went on an electronic music forum and asked and got confirmation it was brickwalled from others. I was told I needed the first CD release. I got the original release and played it. It sounded exactly the same as the SPV reissue. Laugh, I couldn't begin.

Electricity makes all the music we hear today, and have heard - with full exceptions - since the 60's. Electricity ain't analog.

Yes, I'm not in a great mood tonight - for no reason whatsoever. Maybe it's Tull's Dot.Com that's playing on my headphones.

Hot Mango Flesh?

 

It's not bad but I do prefer analog (recording/mixing/mastering) in most cases. Digital does have a very important place in this world though.

I've learned to trust my ears.

 

When the record companies started promoting 'digital' they would never in their wildest dreams thought it would be the end for them! The internet has all but killed their sales! For them 'digital' is probably a dirty word (ha!ha!) and it serves them right!

JG

 

This post is digitally mastered from my original analog source mouth.

Therefore its better and louder . Pay more.

 

really? there are no problems with stereo recording and playback? It's perfect?

 

Digital is not a dirty word. When a CD is recorded & mastered properly then it can sound very impressive. If an LP has been recorded , mixed , mastered & pressed properly then it will sound superior . I like both.