Interesting Article on High Fidelity Audio Resurgence
- Thread starter Rich
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Satch
Well-known member
Steve Jobs preferred to listen to his music on vinyl records. 
bzr
Well-known member
I think it's going to have to be a real "AHA" moment as in some real gobsmacking quality shining through, the price point of the gear needed in the future to accommodate the future updates might mean a thing or two too.
User211
Well-known member
What are you after, here, Rich? Surely not the old digital vs analogue debate?
The geeky analogue/digital hybrid tape machine CLASP is probably not much different to taking old analogue masters and dumping them onto CDs.
There's not a lot ground breaking in the article, TBH. Just a discussion of bit rates, glorification of old technology etc. Seen it all before. I know that sounds abrupt - but it is true
The geeky analogue/digital hybrid tape machine CLASP is probably not much different to taking old analogue masters and dumping them onto CDs.
There's not a lot ground breaking in the article, TBH. Just a discussion of bit rates, glorification of old technology etc. Seen it all before. I know that sounds abrupt - but it is true
sleepysurf
Well-known member
Agree. Not much groundbreaking stuff mentioned, BUT, the fact that it's in USA Today, reaching a much larger audience than the usual "audiophile" press, is encouraging. Neil Young seems to be on a "mission" to awaken the country to the "compression transgressions" of the past. Let's hope he succeeds!
You can all help spread the word by posting the article link to your Facebook page (if you have one).
You can all help spread the word by posting the article link to your Facebook page (if you have one).
Last edited:
Hocky
Well-known member
If anything, there is a lot of false information in the article.
Satch, I knew you guys would love that quote. Justin, what I am looking for is an honest discussion of some of the themes and issues raised in this article. Nothing more and nothing less. I understand that the article is not technically precise, but at the same time, it is not published in The Absolute Sound; it is published in USA Today and is geared to the average reader of that newspaper, not to a bunch of gear heads. I think the article brings attention to many of the themes we often discuss and lament in this forum, and makes those themes known to a much wider audience, as Alan noted. That, I think, is the real importance of this article. The themes I am talking about?
- The lack of quality of many recordings of the modern era, including the inattention to detail by recording engineers and overuse of dynamic compression
- The insufficiency in fidelity of a basic CD and the improvement in sound achievable via high resolution digital formats and/or analog playback
- The lack of understanding of the benefits of true high fidelity music reproduction by the majority of today's music consumers and disinterest in paying for such fidelity
- Efforts by some in the industry, such as Neil Young, to change all of this moving forward
So I am looking for an honest discussion of some of these themes and how technology can move us forward (rather than backward) in the search for high fidelity. Hocky, it is a little too easy to dismiss the article as containing a lot of "false information" without actually trying to engage anyone in a discussion about it. What, exactly, strikes you as false in this article? What is your take on some of the themes raised by the article? Instead of dismissing it out of hand, why not use your brain to discuss the issues raised?
Justin, you are right in that there is not much difference between CLASP and taking old analog masters and dumping them onto disc . . . except that there are no old analog masters of Jack Johnson's next album. This is a machine to make it more efficient and easy to use tape for recording new material in the studio today. You can get better fidelity, in a cost-effective manner, by recording onto tape and then sending it to digital than you can recording straight to digital. You also have more control over the sound by choosing which tape speed to record at. This machine makes it easier for engineers recording new material in the studio to record that material at a higher fidelity and achieve the sound they are looking for while using equipment they already own that is sitting idle, and ultimately, that is what it is all about from our end-user perspective -- higher fidelity recordings to enjoy on our awesome systems.
Some more technical information on CLASP:
ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN CLASP REVIEW – The Next Big Thing Uses Yesterday’s Technology
AUDIO MEDIA MAGAZINE ENDLESS ANALOG CLASP REVIEW
I still think this technology is a stop-gap. We ultimately need to find a better way to record analog-level signal quality directly onto digital media. I think that is really the future of high fidelity audio.
- The lack of quality of many recordings of the modern era, including the inattention to detail by recording engineers and overuse of dynamic compression
- The insufficiency in fidelity of a basic CD and the improvement in sound achievable via high resolution digital formats and/or analog playback
- The lack of understanding of the benefits of true high fidelity music reproduction by the majority of today's music consumers and disinterest in paying for such fidelity
- Efforts by some in the industry, such as Neil Young, to change all of this moving forward
So I am looking for an honest discussion of some of these themes and how technology can move us forward (rather than backward) in the search for high fidelity. Hocky, it is a little too easy to dismiss the article as containing a lot of "false information" without actually trying to engage anyone in a discussion about it. What, exactly, strikes you as false in this article? What is your take on some of the themes raised by the article? Instead of dismissing it out of hand, why not use your brain to discuss the issues raised?
Justin, you are right in that there is not much difference between CLASP and taking old analog masters and dumping them onto disc . . . except that there are no old analog masters of Jack Johnson's next album. This is a machine to make it more efficient and easy to use tape for recording new material in the studio today. You can get better fidelity, in a cost-effective manner, by recording onto tape and then sending it to digital than you can recording straight to digital. You also have more control over the sound by choosing which tape speed to record at. This machine makes it easier for engineers recording new material in the studio to record that material at a higher fidelity and achieve the sound they are looking for while using equipment they already own that is sitting idle, and ultimately, that is what it is all about from our end-user perspective -- higher fidelity recordings to enjoy on our awesome systems.
Some more technical information on CLASP:
ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN CLASP REVIEW – The Next Big Thing Uses Yesterday’s Technology
AUDIO MEDIA MAGAZINE ENDLESS ANALOG CLASP REVIEW
I still think this technology is a stop-gap. We ultimately need to find a better way to record analog-level signal quality directly onto digital media. I think that is really the future of high fidelity audio.
Last edited:
One other thing I would mention . . . while CLASP may not seem like a big deal to us, I think it needs to be examined from the point of view of the studio recording engineers. Ultimately, they are the ones largely responsible for the fidelity of the audio recordings we purchase. This is a way for them to use equipment they already own and understand how to use (equipment that is mostly sitting idle currently) to improve recording fidelity and their ability to control and manage the sound that they record, but still be able to use the digital mixing tools they have become accustomed to and output to digital formats. From their perspective, I think this is a pretty big deal. And if they are going to invest in and use this equipment, chances are they are doing so with the aim of producing a higher fidelity digital recording. And I think that is a big deal to us as the end user. So I wouldn't discount this so quickly as no big deal.
I must agree with Rich. I believe there are a number of folks that would be wildly receptive to greatly improved SQ. I certainly would!
tsv_1
Well-known member
IMO...
Applying lossy compression to digital audio files = bad
Using super high sampling rates with well engineered anti-aliasing/shaping filters intended for media with appropriate b/w = good (e.g. DSD)
Inserting magnetic tape prior to a/d to leverage that nostalgic sound of old technology = personal preference
Writing an article (regardless of the intended audience) that takes a liberal approach to factual information = punishable offense
That said, anything that brings attention to higher fidelity (either recording or playback) is a very, very good thing.
Applying lossy compression to digital audio files = bad
Using super high sampling rates with well engineered anti-aliasing/shaping filters intended for media with appropriate b/w = good (e.g. DSD)
Inserting magnetic tape prior to a/d to leverage that nostalgic sound of old technology = personal preference
Writing an article (regardless of the intended audience) that takes a liberal approach to factual information = punishable offense
That said, anything that brings attention to higher fidelity (either recording or playback) is a very, very good thing.
It follows a pattern of returning to the past, which this country does time to time. Ever watch Antiques Road Show on PBS?
Also reminds me of what I watched this morning.
A typewriter renaissance
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7397608n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50119479&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7397608n&tag=contentMain;contentBody" />
Mind you that I agree that some of the old stuff offers an experience which the newer stuff cannot.
Not an analog verses digital debate........................happy now?
Speedskater
Well-known member
I think that we need to put our hip boots on! Maybe 3/4's of the ideas presented as facts are wrong.
User211
Well-known member
Quote: "Although it’s hard to resist the convenience of a digital audio workstation, nothing beats the way analog tape colors sound. It’s a format that makes guitars, bass, and drums sound huge, while smoothing out the voice like butter. "
So what we're really taking about here is a sound colouration device. Deliberately changing the sound with tape speed is another factor. Additionally, with time stamped samples everything can be synch'd nicely. It's quite a nice idea. Also, though the tape is "costlyish", it can presumably be re-used multiple times as the sound enters the digital (and presumably hard drive) domain almost instantaneously.
Rich - it is just another tool. Unlikely to surpass high speed digital sampling on accuracy grounds IMHO.
I'm not personally adverse to sound colouration devices. Actually, I'm all for them if they sound good. I use them - specifically tubes! Both in my hi-fi and in the guitar amp I have. Any method of getting the desired sound is kosher with me. And a fair point is made that digital simulations of analogue distortions rarely come up trumps. The classic case is simulating tube overload in guitar amps. I've not heard digital effects master this well at all - at least the ones I have bought.
Whilst the best accuracy is probably achieved via high sampling digital hardware, is accuracy really what is required to achieve the sound you want? For example, a guitar sound is produced by running a guitar amp with maybe 15% distortion (total guess - but it can be hugely high) - what, therefore, does another 1% matter?
Also, my vinyl playback can at least compete with digital playback subjectively, but it is way, way worse technically. OK I run a stupidly expensive Transfiguration Orpheus cartridge and some pretty nice analogue hardware, but it is still technically worse than a cheap CD player.
All sorts of things can make stuff sound good. I am reminded of a Porcupine Tree track, where a mass of dither is applied to a track, and is maintained into the next track which has a very quiet intro. The amount of dither is extreme, yet it was there before the quiet spell began. A clever point being made, there, I think
Todd is right to complain about the BS in the USA Today article, but let's face it, the media is run by people with very little regard to accuracy. In fact, being inaccurate is positvely to their attention seeking advantage, and for the most part I'm sure it is done deliberately. They can't be that stupid, right? Then again...
So what we're really taking about here is a sound colouration device. Deliberately changing the sound with tape speed is another factor. Additionally, with time stamped samples everything can be synch'd nicely. It's quite a nice idea. Also, though the tape is "costlyish", it can presumably be re-used multiple times as the sound enters the digital (and presumably hard drive) domain almost instantaneously.
Rich - it is just another tool. Unlikely to surpass high speed digital sampling on accuracy grounds IMHO.
I'm not personally adverse to sound colouration devices. Actually, I'm all for them if they sound good. I use them - specifically tubes! Both in my hi-fi and in the guitar amp I have. Any method of getting the desired sound is kosher with me. And a fair point is made that digital simulations of analogue distortions rarely come up trumps. The classic case is simulating tube overload in guitar amps. I've not heard digital effects master this well at all - at least the ones I have bought.
Whilst the best accuracy is probably achieved via high sampling digital hardware, is accuracy really what is required to achieve the sound you want? For example, a guitar sound is produced by running a guitar amp with maybe 15% distortion (total guess - but it can be hugely high) - what, therefore, does another 1% matter?
Also, my vinyl playback can at least compete with digital playback subjectively, but it is way, way worse technically. OK I run a stupidly expensive Transfiguration Orpheus cartridge and some pretty nice analogue hardware, but it is still technically worse than a cheap CD player.
All sorts of things can make stuff sound good. I am reminded of a Porcupine Tree track, where a mass of dither is applied to a track, and is maintained into the next track which has a very quiet intro. The amount of dither is extreme, yet it was there before the quiet spell began. A clever point being made, there, I think
Todd is right to complain about the BS in the USA Today article, but let's face it, the media is run by people with very little regard to accuracy. In fact, being inaccurate is positvely to their attention seeking advantage, and for the most part I'm sure it is done deliberately. They can't be that stupid, right? Then again...
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Hi Rich,
Excellent thread.
Regarding No. 3 on your list, my personal view is that gates have been opened and all the horses have left the corral.
I believe the younger generation, for the most part, has adopted MP3 as the musical quality standard and there's nothing the music industry can do to reverse this trend. That along with the fact that we, as a society, are now overloaded with so much information (be it music, news, the internet,etc.) that we accept and expect this information to be fed in condensed, 30 second bites. Given this broad mindset, finding time to devote to one item is becoming rare, impractical, and / or unnecessary for most folks.
One recent example really brought this into focus for me. As I purchase remastered CD or SACD's of my favorite music, I have tried to give my previous CD's to friends. Most of my friends say "no thanks, I don't listen to them anymore".
Gordon
Excellent thread.
Regarding No. 3 on your list, my personal view is that gates have been opened and all the horses have left the corral.
I believe the younger generation, for the most part, has adopted MP3 as the musical quality standard and there's nothing the music industry can do to reverse this trend. That along with the fact that we, as a society, are now overloaded with so much information (be it music, news, the internet,etc.) that we accept and expect this information to be fed in condensed, 30 second bites. Given this broad mindset, finding time to devote to one item is becoming rare, impractical, and / or unnecessary for most folks.
One recent example really brought this into focus for me. As I purchase remastered CD or SACD's of my favorite music, I have tried to give my previous CD's to friends. Most of my friends say "no thanks, I don't listen to them anymore".
Gordon
tsv_1
Well-known member
Actually, I lean just a few degrees left of center
And I agree - the media treats facts like Michael Vick treats dogs.
Alright, that's several people that have trashed the facts in this article as wrong, without providing a single example. I'm calling you guys on this BS. If you think there is an idea that is presented as fact in this article that is wrong, then state exactly what it is, and provide a source to prove it is wrong. Put your money where your mouth is! Conclusory opinions with no facts or reasoning to support them simply don't hold water in an intellectual discussion.
Todd is right to complain about the BS in the USA Today article, but let's face it, the media is run by people with very little regard to accuracy. In fact, being inaccurate is positvely to their attention seeking advantage, and for the most part I'm sure it is done deliberately. They can't be that stupid, right? Then again...
Actually, having worked for my college newspaper before, I understand where some of the issues come from. I don't think it is generally intentional. Think about being a reporter for a minute. You have to have multiple stories researched and written under tight deadlines. You have to be an expert on everything from government, to science to social issues, to whatever the next topic is that your editor assigns to you, even high end audio of all silly things, and you have to write an article of a certain word length (not too long or short, although the editor is going to hack it to bits anyway), also you must make the article informative, interesting, topical, poignant, technically accurate . . . oh, and you have to have it written yesterday. Along with the three other articles you were assigned last week. And you have to do all this for a pittance in salary.
Yeah, I just don't know why the media is so inaccurate? It is a complete mystery.
I think you raise a valid point, Gordon. But I think the jury is still out on that. Things come and go in phases in this country. Just look at the resurgence of vinyl thirty years after it was supposedly declared a dead format. I can now buy plenty of new vinyl at my local Best Buy. While the mp3 generation has had its say over the past decade, I do believe we are entering a period where there will be a new emphasis on quality of music and musical artists, as well as quality of musical reproduction. I also think that such a sea change will have to be initiated at the source, by the artists and the recording engineers and the big studios themselves. That is why I am indeed excited about Neil Young's efforts in this area.
