Digital audio and stress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#4
Dude111 said:
A good article about this

The Diamond Center: Digital stress

Makes sense as digital DOES NOT have the warmth of analogue so listening to it leaves an empty feeling that cant be filled......
Click to expand...

The article was written in 1980! It has been quite well documented that the early days of digital audio (both studio recording and home reproduction) had some growing pains...

This kind of self-promoting fluff piece (it was written by an MD pushing a "supplement" he invented to alleviate 'digital stress') has about zero relevance in 2015/2016 (35 years later).

Maybe a better place to post this crap would be in Douglas Self's recent thread about "why some people prefer vinyl" (or entitled something like that). You might get a better than lukewarm response over there.
 
Last edited:
#5
Diamond was thoroughly debunked as a quack, but BS never seems to die. When people step outside of the relatively harmless audio scam world and into medical quackery, in my mind they transform from amusing con artists into truly evil people.

Diamond is truly evil and there's a special place in Hell for him.
 
#10
Dude111 said:
He is right though.... It doesnt have the same warmth and feel..... The 80s started using this crap more and more 🙁
Click to expand...

This is a troll, right?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: My system is more digital now than it's ever been - about as digital as it can be! - and it's never sounded more natural, real, and yes, "warm" than it does right now.

In conclusion, let me just say: :deer:

-- Jim
 
#12
I remember Dr. Diamond giving a paper at the 1982(?) AES convention in LA. A most entertaining speaker! At the and of his presentation there was pandemonium in the room.
A well known member of the AES community got to the audience microphone and, shaking his fist at Dr. Diamond, declared that the good Dr. had made a dog and pony show of these (holy) proceedings. Calmly, Dr. Diamond responded: Sir, if you want to be the doggy, I gladly be the pony!
Ah, memories! Dr. Diamond may have been wrong, but with so much money on the table, no wonder so many people were upset! E
 
#15
I myself have noticed listening fatigue when listening to digital sources. Xm radio is a good example. I have a portable player that I used at work and could listen for about an hour at a time before I would need to take a break from it for a while. Listening to vinyl on my tube gear however is a completely different story.

I guess it just comes down to what you are looking for in your listening experience and what you personally think sounds better to you. No science involved, its all an individual preference. For me that would be completely analog. For others it could be digital. Its all up to the listener.
 
#16
Please don't take this personally, but xm radio is about the worst possible example of "digital" sound, as it's been subjected to extreme data compression that mangles the sound quality. I can't listen to it for any length of time either. Uncompressed (or even reasonably compressed) digital audio, allowed sufficient bandwidth and bit rate (a separate debate, of course), is a different experience entirely.

-- Jim
 
#17
I never take things personally so no worries. I feel the same about CDs as well. As i said though, its not about science or being able to provide proof, but what sounds "right" to the person listening. For me its an all tube setup and my turntable. My wife can listen to a cd all day long.

Ive always found fan boy arguments to be a real waste. Its like being hacked off because the guy in front of you in line didnt order the same sandwich as you were going to. You can get mired down with numbers and stats or just listen to what you like the best and be happy.

For me, happiness is a good highland single malt, good tunes, and good company.
 
#19
I think some of the problems come when we assign the blame for the displeasure on the digitalness specifically. If you hate a digital radio signal, might it possibly be the compression and other processing that went into the broadcast having an effect? Not arguing anything, just offering alternative explanations. I know early CDs were poorly produced because old school audio engineers were mixing for analog technology on digital equipment. And there is that whole how loud can we get it on a CD thing that is still going on.

I guess I am suggesting that many times digital doesn't sound as good as it could because of how it is used, not because of what it is. And the numbers and stats you speak of can't tell us anything about the production of the recording. Just as the finest recipe from a world class chef may not taste as good when I cook it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom