badger748
Former bacon enthusiast
Nailed it!
DACs vs Turntables
- Thread starter hermit
- Start date
Nailed it!
No it isn't! Both have limitations...
You are using the wrong word as in "accurate". This means absolutely nothing to anyone with regard to the reproduction of music. The word that is meaningful here is "realistic". Does the reproduced recording sound realistic. That's all we can go on based on the fact that we never heard the recording live in the studio.
Practically all equipment made today is capable of replaying music with low enough distortion figures that the human ear would not be able to detect, based on measured figures provided.
Both formats affect the reproduced sound in some way...
If that is the case then why do some prefer NOS DAC designs, some prefer the sound of the original TDA1541 DACs, some prefer R2R DACs and many of todays DACs have different filters. If they all sound the same then why go to all this trouble.
Nope. Accuracy means that if the source signal does not sound realistic, nor will the accurate reproduction of it.
Indeed. It is always possible to create and enjoy an intentionally perverted version of reality. This is of course the realm of NOS dacs.
We have no idea what accuracy is, or what it relates too. It's a nonsense word in audio. It has no meaning that anyone can relate to...
Of course they do. Contrary to what some vinylphiles believe, no system can have infinite resolution. But you probably missed the word 'audibly'. Think about the Linn /Sony PCM F1 experiment already discussed in this thread. If the output of the Sony converter had been used as a master for a vinyl cut, would the result of the test have been similar?
It simply means similarity between the input signal and the output signal. Apparently a very hard concept to grasp in subjectivist audio.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Octavian,
Didn't you once say that you mainly listen to music using a phone and Sony fart-cancelling headphones? I'm fine with that, especially if your diet is high in fibre, but your interest in objectivism appears to be mainly argumentative.
Joe
Didn't you once say that you mainly listen to music using a phone and Sony fart-cancelling headphones? I'm fine with that, especially if your diet is high in fibre, but your interest in objectivism appears to be mainly argumentative.
Joe
Well just because people like buying shiny new things doesn't mean there's any technical difference does it?
At least my farts are accurate: all sound, not coloured.
Del monaco
Del Monaco
But what do you play them through?
Because by definition, that's not what subjectivist audio is!
gustav_errata
pfm Member
I'm going to go a bit more philosophical here if I may. Apologies.
I think that this question of realism is the traditional view on hi-fi. However, I think that it only made sense when the primary music being recorded was instrumental. However, the advent of electronic- and computer-generated audio, nevermind whether you like it aesthetically, reveals the whole question of "realism" to be a bit of a sham. In this case, the artist manipulates parameters to produce a sound of their liking, regardless of any resemblance to a sound produced by voice or instrument. So, for a song that is 100% computer-generated (again, set aside your feelings about such music, as they are irrelevant here), how does one assess the "realism" of the reproduction when you play the song on your system? And what if one of the sounds in the song attempts to synthesize a traditional instrument sound (say, synthesized piano). When you judge the "realism" of the playback, are you judging how that piano sounds relative to a real piano or are you assessing the perceived realism relative to the information encoded in the recording? For the former, your system has nothing to do with it because it's all dependent on pre-recording decisions. For the latter, well...I have no idea what it even means in the case of synthesized sounds.
However, now when you go back to instrumental music, it's in fact the same story. The sound that is recorded is a result of the placement of a microphone, plus additional EQ or other effects by the engineer. Those decisions are going to influence how "realistic" the recording sounds more than your system. Your system is just going to attempt to convert that recording from information encoded as grooves on a record or bits in a file/CD into sound waves traversing the air. You can either assess how well the engineer captured the sound of the instrument, or you can assess how well your system reproduces the recording of it. But "realism" is a lie that you can in fact only tell yourself for a subset of recorded music.
It's better to let go of any notion of realism and just decide whether the recording, as reproduced by your system, tickles your musical enjoyment.
k90tour
pfm Member
I see many photos of chamber ensembles seated far apart during recording, with a microphone for each player. I don't want my reply to sound like the ensemble is broken up and so I don't want to hear what it sounded like in the studio. I'd rather it was mixed to sound like something I'd prefer and as if it wasn't a recorded performance at all.
If we believe that room acoustics plays a major part in what you hear, then shouldn't we also model our listening space to match what the recording engineer enjoys?
(Mind, I'm not sure a full range mixing desk will go down that well here, not to mention a bunch of "artistes" coming and going as they please!)