Analogue superiority

[Anonymous]

Thaiman:SlickenSmooth:

Maybe a AMR-77 will satisfy my hunger for the analogue sound I'm looking for.

They have done well but they tubey sound AMR-77 produced doesn't mean it sound like an analog source. I think the answer is in the Digital - Analog converter, some upsample new ones sound soft and un-involving but the old TDA1541 dc sound pretty much spot on

Doesn't the AMR-77 CD use the TDA1541dac?

 

[the record spot]

Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who refer to LP as "warm and muddled"...couldn't be further from the truth. Rather like saying CD is only ever digital and brittle. Neither are true, although it does tend to show more of a limitation in the listener than the medium.

 

[JoelSim]

There are some interesting points made on this forum. I, for one, am a big fan of (most) CDs, but I tend to only buy stuff which is well produced because of my interest in hifi. That rules out much pop, even someone with a nice voice like Leona sounds harsh because of the production for radio and MP3 listening.

I'm past using a TT, and I don't agree that even a budget turntable can sound great as I tried it earlier in the year and was underwhelmed, significantly. Likewise I have an iPod and an iPhone which I use sparingly, they are fine especially if you've had a few beers and are getting a tube home, and a kebab. But for serious listening MP3 is poor, and even with lossless the jury is out at the moment (but more research needs to be done on this by me before I jump the gun).

Maybe I'm just used to the sound of CD, in the same way many love the brittle sound of MP3. There's no wrong or right answer, just settle on what you like.

Just had to stop typing for 5 mins then to listen to a tune from Tracy Chapman, called 'Save us all' from the 'Our Bright Future' album...suffice it to say that I would happily invite anyone over to listen to that on CD and tell me it sounds anything but stunning, like genies coming out of the speakers and singing to me. Truly sublime, with no hint of 44.1KHz jaggedy jaggedy, not even 1% jaggedy.

My poor neighbours...

 

[chebby]

JoelSim:I, for one, am a big fan of (most) CDs, but I tend to only buy stuff which is well produced because of my interest in hifi. That rules out much pop...

Good grief. Some of my favourite music is on tacky pop compilation CDs. I can't get into this idea of pandering to the equipment at the expense of denying yourself certain discs (let alone an entire genre!) I just get what I enjoy and 'hifi' can go hang.

JoelSim:I'm past using a TT, and I don't agree that even a budget turntable can sound great as I tried it earlier in the year and was underwhelmed, significantly.

Budget turntable user who would disagree with you and has been busy buying up our entire local second-hand record store in the last week.

JoelSim:...like genies coming out of the speakers and singing to me.

I can only begin to imagine where and how often that gem is going to get used as a stick to beat this forum with

 

[JoelSim]

Come round Chebby and you'll hear exactly what I mean.

 

[matthewpiano]

chebby:
JoelSim:I, for one, am a big fan of (most) CDs, but I tend to only buy stuff which is well produced because of my interest in hifi. That rules out much pop...

Good grief. Some of my favourite music is on tacky pop compilation CDs. I can't get into this idea of pandering to the equipment at the expense of denying yourself certain discs (let alone an entire genre!) I just get what I enjoy and 'hifi' can go hang.

Agreed, and one of the reasons why some hi-fi has caused me so much grief. I want everything to be listenable and I believe that on a truly good system it can be. Obviously some recordings are going to sound stunning and others only passable, but as long as the passable ones are palatable I'm happy. I'd certainly never choose the music to suit the hi-fi. If I'd done that when I was using the Cambridge 650A I would never have listened to any orchestral music at all! (I feel ill at the very thought of living without that wonderful, rich vein of music).

 

[JoelSim]

matthewpiano:chebby:
JoelSim:I, for one, am a big fan of (most) CDs, but I tend to only buy stuff which is well produced because of my interest in hifi. That rules out much pop...

Good grief. Some of my favourite music is on tacky pop compilation CDs. I can't get into this idea of pandering to the equipment at the expense of denying yourself certain discs (let alone an entire genre!) I just get what I enjoy and 'hifi' can go hang.

Agreed, and one of the reasons why some hi-fi has caused me so much grief. I want everything to be listenable and I believe that on a truly good system it can be. Obviously some recordings are going to sound stunning and others only passable, but as long as the passable ones are palatable I'm happy. I'd certainly never choose the music to suit the hi-fi. If I'd done that when I was using the Cambridge 650A I would never have listened to any orchestral music at all! (I feel ill at the very thought of living without that wonderful, rich vein of music).

I don't disagree, that wasn't what I was getting at, but some music naturally sounds better than others, and I have optimized my system for the sort of music I like on a regular basis ie that sounds absolutely brilliant as it's 80% of my listening, yet the other 20% also sounds decent (but would probably sound better with other kit).

I talked about Tracy Chapman earlier but that doesn't mean I want 'Bonkers' to sound mushy, although my system isn't chosen for that R&B rubbish that populates the charts these days where all the chumps sound exactly the same due to the lack of talent and consequent production methods.

They would sound poor on any system!

 

[manicm]

storsvante:

There are 2 different angles to this whole discussion.

The first is the subjective listening experience and your enjoyment of the sound produced.

The second is the accuracy of the reproduction, as in, how closely the signal coming out of your source (vinyl, CDP, computer/DAC, or whatever else it may be) matches the studio original.

For the former, everyone can argue to their heart's content and clearly there are no right or wrong answers.

For the latter, digital has a distinct advantage over legacy analogue solutions like vinyl, casette and such like. And by "digital" I'm not talking about specific implementation but in more general terms - it's a fact, that using digital methods you can deliver an EXACT COPY of the studio original into your DAC, and coupled with a good DAC, you can get an extremely faithful reproduction of the original, much more so than through vinyl for example. I once tried to explain in this thread: http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/311161.aspx

Much more than vinyl? How would you reach that conclusion? I would say yes and no.

There's an interesting topic at the Linn forums as to which sounds better - their LP12 or Klimax DS. Interesting that Linn's MD said that, generally, original analogue recordings would sound better on vinyl, digital on DS.

I also remember that an early 90s Yes album - Talk - was one of the very first albums to be recorded entirely digitally straight to Macs by the guitarist/producer Trevor Rabin. I would imagine in such a recording you'd get the 'full fat' from CD.