LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2008

ARSCLIST January 2008

Subject:

Re: Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators

From:

"H. Duane Goldman" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:17:15 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (68 lines)

Hi Tom,

"Bang for buck" analogies aside, I certainly do not agree that digital 
playback rivals state-of-the-art analog playback & the latter systems while 
not cheap are not absurdly priced.  The bottom line is the quality of music 
reproduction & while some CDs & SACDs are very enjoyable using quality 
playback equipment, properly set up analog playback remains closer to the 
performance & tonal characteristics of live instruments.  It does seem 
likely than some of the criticisms with current digital sound quality are 
related to playback equipment & only time will tell if these issues will be 
resolved before most of us loose our hearing.  Of course, if someone can't 
hear the differences or simply doesn't care, the whole issue is moot.

Regards,

Duane Goldman

This was clearly demonstrated in two setups at T.H.E. Show during the CES 
in Las Vegas earlier this month:  Herron Audio using their own electronics 
& VPIs new rim driven turntable & the Schroder room with their 
arm/prototype tape drive turntable combo.

At 07:46 AM 1/22/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Ya know, this is probably blasphemy to whatever audiophile-types lurk on 
>this list, but I think you get a lot more bang for the buck investing in a 
>really good CD playback system. More "golden ears" I've met than I care to 
>say rail on about how "digital sucks" or "CD's sound terrible." Then, when 
>I ask them about their system, it turns out they are using either a 
>first-generation CD player from the early 80's or they are using some 
>dirt-cheap on-sale DVD/CD player from the local big-box. CD players are 
>NOT all the same and furthermore external D-A boxes are NOT all the same. 
>If you combine well-mastered CD's with a stable mechanism and an excellent 
>D-A unit, you'll push your amp and speakers (and ears) as far as they can go.
>
>Now, just as in the LP era, the majority of CD product on the market is 
>not well-mastered, so the garden-variety CD has a bad rap for sounding 
>awful through no fault of the technology. This was the same thing with a 
>lot of rock and jazz LPs back in the day. Overuse of dynamics-compression, 
>bad EQ choices, and bad mixing or mic-placement choices at the session are 
>nothing new. But, the difference with CD's and even more so with 
>higher-resolution digital formats, is that there aren't the built-in 
>distortions and limits of analog formats. No matter how superb your analog 
>setup is, output is audibly different from input. If you like the output 
>better -- ie the distortions are euphonic to your tastes -- that's one 
>thing. But the truthful assessment is, a well-designed digital system can 
>get as close to output = input as the vast, vast majority of ears can hear 
>(and certainly the overwhelmingly vast majority of home-listening setups 
>can reproduce).
>
>If I had the thousands it costs to buy and maintain an ATR Services 
>machine, and this were simply for a listening hobby, I'd spend that money 
>on a mechanically-superb mid-line DVD/CD player, a top-line DAC and then 
>take the other 2/3 of the money and invest in great speakers and room 
>treatments so I had a top-rate listening environment. If I already had 
>that in place, I'd invest the 2/3 of the money I had left in a diverse 
>collection of great listening software, paying attention first to my 
>musical tastes and then to sound quality since great music should soar 
>above a crappy recording (although it doesn't in all cases).
>
>This is probably not the answer some want to hear, but I submit that it's 
>by far the most bang for the listening-pleasure dollar.
>
>-- Tom Fine

H. Duane Goldman   Lagniappe Chemicals  Ltd.
PO Box 37066   St. Louis, MO 63141
v/f 314 205 1388   http://discdoc.com 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager