the professor
Well-known member
I didn't read mep's post that way, but after re-reading it i guess you could get that impression. I took it as an unrelated to this thread comment - only a side comment about trolls.
DSD versus PCM - Is DSD really better or is it a 'myth'
- Thread starter BlueFox
- Start date
Myles B. Astor
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,884
You and I know very well that Mark is not referring to that. He is talking about someone who owns a 1980 Yamaha turntable and $120 cartridge, who never even heard a good table from that era much, less a good 2015 table, who hasn't heard analog since digital was released, saying digital is better than analog. That's like publishing a research paper in 2015 and ignoring anything published on the subject after 1970 and anything that doesn't fit your theory. The term is parochial.
Okay AJ, since psycho-acoustic relativism seems to be your position of choice, what is the latest research? It would be interesting to duplicate this experiment using the source material described in this thread and see what the results would be: God is in the Nuances | Stereophile.com
Here is an interesting vignette shared by a friend of mine:
still-one
Active member
Myles. I don't know Mark so I can only go by what he posted. You may call the term parochial while i call it pejorative.
As other have noted. How did this thread go from comparing PCM and DSD to include any discussion of tape? The question is rhetorical as I know it wasn't your doing. .
FWIW, over at the SH Forums most of the regular posters who are avid vinylphiles (is that even a word?) have relatively inexpensive systems or no system posted in their profiles at all. So I don't think system price necessarily equates to any particular format preference.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,111
Let me clarify what I actually meant. If you still think what I mean is "very pompous," so be it. On other forums there are people (trolls) who constantly/incessantly run people with systems like yours (meaning you own lots of very expensive gear) into the ground because they believe expensive gear is trash, you only bought it because of the bling factor, it really doesn't sound that good and in a blind test you couldn't pick out your system from a rack system at Best Buy. Sound familiar? It should because you belong to one of the forums I'm talking about. One of the biggest mouths on that forum that likes to run expensive systems like yours into the ground has his entire system on top of of his computer desk because that is all the real estate his wife will allow him. And yet with a pair of small active loudspeakers with a built in DAC that connects to a laptop computer, bingo, he's an expert on what you can possibly hear in your room with your system. So yeah, I call his system challenged in context of the systems he is running into the ground.
Ditto for another audio "expert" who has a $150 Pioneer receiver and a pair of JBL speakers and absolutely hates the high end and everything it stands for and refers to us as "audiphools." Sound familiar? Do you get my point now about trolls that beat down people who buy high end gear and the relationship to the systems they own? The cables in your system cost 100x more than their entire systems put together.
And finally, what I said that you took such umbrage to had nothing to do with them agreeing to my preferences. They don't agree to anything in the high end and that is my point. Me thinks your outrage is greatly exaggerated and misguided. If you don't understand my point now, I hope one of the trolls I'm talking about invites you over for a long listening session at their computer desk. :lol:
FlexibleAudio
Member
I don't understand why someone else's preference should bother you so much. You can take a master tape and run it through a synthesizer, add 10 percent distortion, flush the toilet in the mix and some people will prefer it to the original master tape. Who cares? The human brain is complex and shaped by each persons experiences. To me, it is simply not possible to designate a dimension which is measured exclusively by the human mind as an absolute. What is the merit in sweating the issue? Some pretty rough stuff has been laid down here over what is essentially an existential issue. To what end?
the professor
Well-known member
I would like to ask you the same question.
I couldn't have written a better question but instead to him, to a lot of your comments.
I couldn't have written a better question but instead to him, to a lot of your comments.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,111
I think you read the intent of my post correctly the first time. It was a side comment about trolls.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Speaking of nameless faceless anonymous trolls....
FlexibleAudio
Member
Well Jock, I respect your opinion. I also invite you to give me examples of that which you accuse me. I have no recollection of ever impugning someones personal preference on anything. If you are accusing me of "caring" about accuracy in statements; I stand guilty as charged.
This thread has been a discussion about a topic which relates exclusively to an individuals sensations and preference. A couple of people drew a conclusion about one such sensation being superior, as a factual matter, to another such sensation. When that happens I have no problem openly challenge that kind of a claim. Such statements definitionally can't be proven as fact. They serve no purpose other than insulting the person who holds a contrary view.
Also, I often challenge people who make statements about matters that can generally be measured or explained empirically if they make no sense to me. I do this to to seek clarity and enlightenment or to set the record straight. I attempt to provide evidence supporting my views.
I invite you to go back to my post #145 and try to see the difference between the interactions I reference in that post and what is happening in this thread. If you can't see the difference, I have done a poor job. I clearly do not see myself ever arguing a purely subjective argument as fact. I rather thought I was doing the opposite.
Ha! That was my fault. I referenced Mike L's system, experience, and bias. I have other audio buddies who own comparable systems and have access to tape, vinyl, and various digital formats, and they feel the same. I own a Lampizator GG dac, and it renders PCM and DSD beautifully (with DSD being my subtle preference for the most part...it is a little more rounded and supple and "analog"...:yahoo1
. However, when I have heard top drawer vinyl or tape in the past (in other systems), it always gave me pause. There was always a musical "correctness" about analog sources that made me grind my molars and ask these rhetorical questions on threads. I have no axe to grind and am not trying to be divisive. I am simply curious why it still sounds "better" to these ears and how we get there with digital.One suggestion is for philes like Mike L to try and be a little less smug from your mountain top. We are proud and sensitive creatures and don't like to think our systems could fall short in any way....
anic:Not bothered at all. Just curious as to why people believe what they believe. If it makes them too anxious to answer simple questions, then fine....
I work as a surgeon in Charlotte, NC. A good percentage of the participants on this thread know who I am from other forums. Again, I have no ego hole and do not need to troll or tear others down. Just curious to see why you say what you say. Up until this point, you have successfully avoided saying much of anything concrete and thus maintained your own relative intellectual anonymity. Suit yourself.
YuriKorzunov
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 66
Just now I publish article, where resumed my opinion about DSD vs. PCM topic.
Each format has as advantages, as disadvantages. Both placed out sound quality, if refer to format as itself.
DSD and PCM. Real competitors?
Each format has as advantages, as disadvantages. Both placed out sound quality, if refer to format as itself.
DSD and PCM. Real competitors?
Going back to Post #14, http://audioshark.org/general-audio...really-better-myth-8202-page2.html#post141236, the Opus No.4 Sampler on TAPE is superior to that of the DSD128 studio transfer IMO.
Futhermore, everything I have heard on 1/4" 15ips tape has been more emotionally electrifying than any other medium. Some vinyl is nearly as good but it's different.
I would agree that well recorded analog sounds better because the recording path is simpler, tape medium has the resolute structure to capture the natural arrow of time and we are wired through evolution to interpret an analog world. Everything in nature is analog. We invented digital interpretation. And that's all digital music will ever be, an interpretation. We aren't as good as nature when it comes to creation. We haven't been doing it for long, barely just a blink in the time of our very existence.
Why don't I ever have that same feeling sitting in front of dCS etc?
You know what I love digital for....Convenient background music. It is practical when you are not focussed on it.
Kev above is right on.
Futhermore, everything I have heard on 1/4" 15ips tape has been more emotionally electrifying than any other medium. Some vinyl is nearly as good but it's different.
I would agree that well recorded analog sounds better because the recording path is simpler, tape medium has the resolute structure to capture the natural arrow of time and we are wired through evolution to interpret an analog world. Everything in nature is analog. We invented digital interpretation. And that's all digital music will ever be, an interpretation. We aren't as good as nature when it comes to creation. We haven't been doing it for long, barely just a blink in the time of our very existence.
Why don't I ever have that same feeling sitting in front of dCS etc?
You know what I love digital for....Convenient background music. It is practical when you are not focussed on it.
Kev above is right on.
Agreed, and that is why the psycho-acoustic question is a serious one. Why does the lay public appear to prefer analog over digital when blinded to the source (the root of that stereophile article)? I myself am a digital critter largely out of convenience....