The Soundstream Digital system used a 16-bit word length and a 50kHz sample rate (and had “pretty amazing” ADCs). It predates the Redbook Standard 44.1kHz sample rate by several years and was originally used by Telarc to create masters for LPs, since it lacked a number of familiar drawbacks inherent in analog magnetic tape (hiss, distortion, print through and oxide deterioration over time). But while it was possible in those early days to convert 50kHz data to 44.1kHz for publication in CD format, albeit a process involving rather complex algorithms, in practice it didn’t work out as well as it did in theory. Some of the original sound quality of the Soundsteam system was lost in the conversion process. Mr Blakemore writes that “ …downsampling converters use an upsampling interpolation algorithm plus high frequency digital filtering in order to down-sample via decimation to the lower sampling rate. ”
I have most Telarc Soundstream CD’s & those that were later released on SACD. While the CDs sound good, the SACD’s clearly allow you to hear just how good that recording system was.
Just try not to eat too much of that lead solder! Never liked the lead-free stuff, but was forced to use at work. At home nothing but the “good stuff” for me.
Maybe if it ever enters the digital domain (via ADC or similar) it can never be called Analog again regardless of the final product sound quality?
If that is the case then there are some very good sounding Digital recordings.
Thanks, man - I’d forgotten what this thread was about
Elk - maybe three threads: Solder Stuff, Digital vs. Analog Formats, and The Subjective Experience of Digital vs. Analog. Since that last only lasted about two hours first time around.
Baldy - Your point is certainly arguable, or perhaps inarguable on the face of it. But I still think it possible to discuss degrees of whatever-it-is that happens with even moderately good analog vs. moderately good - or mixed-source - digital.
Yes, as Darren has noted, a cheap DAC “beats” a cheap turntable rig (in so many words). But I think whatever is implied by that ends right around there. The problem I think we’re still laboring under (lo, these many decades since the Dawn of Digital) is that digital is somehow not subject to the same sorts or number of issues as analog.
Many (though not all) of the problems with achieving good analog reproduction (to take TT’s and RtoR’s as examples) are mechanical in nature. But if you think that doesn’t apply to shiny-disc spinning, you haven’t heard a good transport playing your favorite CD. The Products of those mechanical shortcomings are different in the different realms, but the point is that digital is not free of even these sorts of old school limitations.
The more folks like Ted and the various Server makers delve into it, the more it becomes clear that literally Everything Matters in digital. And for me at least, the Standard that digital is working toward is always something like a vision of Perfect Analog reproduction.
I love both analog and digital. I think I enjoy on vinyl most the 78rpm sides reissued on 12" LP and the wonderful sound of 'fifties LPs on Columbia, Roulette, Blue Note, etc. In the case of the early material, I just like the way they mastered these to the newer format, they still had “ears” closer to the original sound. And there’s something about the very best of those amazing 'fifties LPs that just sound like nothing else.
For sure. What happens really fast, as evidenced by this thread so far, is that there are a lot of areas and aspects of the Subjective Experience of one vs. the other. And the discussion often quickly veers (including my posts) into more objective areas. You’re talking about not paying attention to How the tune is being reproduced, but the tune itself, and all that may call up in your experience and memory. In some ways, I’d love to not care about all of these “mechanics” of repro. But I’ve been into it for too long, and/or am predisposed to it. I’ll never forget the thrill as a young teenager, putting a couple of SM58’s out, hooking them up to a RtoR deck and recording my brother’s band.
The initial impulse for the post that became the thread was that when reproduction gets more “right” to us - not just to our brains and measuring devices - it gets more akin to an analog of the music, warts and all, than to the digital of the music, warts and all. YMMV.
I understand you and I’d understand Paul’s probable protest if he would read
The world … and the music is analog and analog processing (even if limited in technical terms) seems the best yet from an emotional experience point of view (to those with that opinion). Analog currently is the best orientation what already can be achieved in difficult to achieve characteristics (for those with that opinion). Characteristics where digital is superior seem less relevant for the emotional experience (for those with that opinion).
So is this the reason why the goal is based on a perfect vision of it? IMO yes.
Is it the right goal? IMO no.
Why? Because the technology to achieve a goal should not be inherited in the phrasing of the goal itself.
Should the goal of digital photography be to work towards a vision of perfect analog photography?
IMO no.
The goal should be to work towards a perfect reproduction of the original. Analog photography can be an orientation of what’s already possible to achieve in certain areas (and others not so much), but it should not be part of the goal.
Also digital technology should not be the defined base of the goal. As we know, analog interim processing (e.g. in mastering DSD) today is better suited to achieve the goal within the digital camp than pure digital processing. It seems it’s good to act towards a goal, independent of dogmas and defined preconditions.
I remember back in the day I had a DDD vinyl copy of the 1812 Overture. The canon shot looked like you carved it into the record with a jackknife. My turntable at the time looked like the tonearm was going to jump off the record playing that piece. I don’t remember much more about it but the canon shot was impressive!
Agreed - and I’m not trying to say one is better than the other. I love both. I’m shocked lately by how much improvement can be made in BOTH.
I’m talking more generally about what one is working Toward. And I am using “an analog” in the prior sense of the word. By either A or D means, as accurate “an analog” of the Original is the best you can hope for in terms of mechanical reproduction, short of some sort of brain implants.(coming SOON from PS Audio!!)
In your photography example, I could imagine “improving the bits” of analog photography’s use of silver halide crystals by creation of finer and finer forms of some new light-sensitive compound, upping the resolution beyond what has ever existed before. You’re bringing this “analog” closer in resolution to Reality. It’ll still never be Reality - just a better or finer degree of Reproduction.
One thing I don’t think anyone pursuing that means of achieving finer resolution would do is to lay it onto the film or the photographic paper in a grid matrix. There is a “natural” degree of randomness in the micro-timing areas of analog repro. When you do something that makes digital get “better”, it always seems to be moving toward that in terms of how it feels to the human physiology. I’m not sure if this is due to interference/disharmony between the AC power and the various resolutions/clock involved or what. You improve the clock, improve the PSU, electrically and mechanically isolate the parts better - Servers improve by leaps.
To get back to the quote that inspired this:
“Poorly done digital is dissonant to the human physiology because of the nature of the distortion.” - Frank Malitz of Carver
“Poorly done” being a highly relative thing. But, with any mid-to-higher end rig, Analog or Digital…the differences in the quality of these parts of the chain are obvious, but perhaps particularly with respect to the Digital, and the effect on the human physiology.
I am a child of the 50’s like many here but I fully embrace the modern formats. I haven’t payed a record since the mid 90’s and don’t miss it at all.
Is vinyl playback better? Maybe but I am not interested in finding out. I’ll stick with my fine sounding digital rig. I think the end cost for similar hi-fi systems is also similar.
Yeah - you don’t want to know. Let’s just say that if you heard Highway Star right now on a good vinyl rig, you would likely go, "Oh. OK. Now I get it. This is gonna cost me How Much?!?"
But I’m also saying that digital is Just Recently (IMO) getting to a place where it achieves something like that degree of a feeling of “rightness” in your heart and gut that you get at a live performance. A better “analog” of the real thing via digital.
That’s the one! I still remember looking at that groove and thinking there’s no way that’s going to track. It was fun just watching the needle roller coaster thru that shot.
Thanks
Jim Milton
