Steve Guttenberg on Analog vs. Digital Sound Quality - Page 2

And the part you didn't highlight?


That's not a useful assertion. It's not a useful article in general. What it does is reassure (by saying words they want to hear) those who already agree with it, and does nothing to persuade those who may be on the fence or those who disagree with it. That's not useful dialogue. That's pandering.

--Andre

How am I factually wrong? He asserts that analog is more musical than digital, and goes on to say that everyone ignores music these days because it's digital.

How is that not "all reasonable people agree"? He asserts something without giving any factual reason or support, and he relies on slippery concepts like musicality having some kind of universal ("all reasonable people") meaning.

--Andre

CNet reviewers and 'clue' are oxymorons. They're populist coat-hanger-ons first, journalists second, experts totally last. Which is why they have a sizeable peer following.

I'm going to have to agree with everyone else-- it's a terrible article. Not only does he never even attempt to answer the question posed by the title- "Why does digital sound better than analog?"- but he never even really establishes that digital does sound better than analog.

This was particularly bad:

"Digitally recorded music may be technically superior to analog, but it misses a lot. It doesn't seem to connect with listeners as well as analog did. My proof? That's easy, as perfect as digital recordings can be, very few people can actually listen to music without doing something else. There's not enough there there to hold their interest."

What basis does he have for saying any of this? If his argument is that people do other things when listening to their iPods, well, yeah, that's what iPods were designed for. As well, it's not especially surprising that a person who would invest $60,000 on an audiophile turntable system isn't just going to listen to music while they're on the treadmill; they invest in an expensive analog system because they are "deep listeners", not the other way around. There is no reason to believe that listeners of CD based home stereo systems aren't every bit as attentative.

As a musician myself, I'm a little offended by the implication that musical content isn't enough to compel a person's interest, and that only audiophile sound quality can.

Now wait a minute.
Are you a real musician?

Or one of those electronic music-making poseur?

I'm a real musician, I just don't have a real instrument.

Except for my S00P3R HY00GE WANG, of course.

So what was that final paragraph supposed to mean?


No hate, it just wasn't a very substantive article. If I wanted to be mean-spirited, I'd comment on his appearance.

So? I ran a music school while it was being turned around. If you asked me to teach anyone, they'd probably be wearing a guitar necklace in a matter of hours. Just because you're involved - even at a senior level - doesn't necessarily mean you actually know shit beyond inferring along with the commonly accepted BS in your industry - as the article illustrates. I refer you to the post(s) I made in the vinyl thread.

Without any knowledge - no. With some mislearned knowledge, absolutely. Let me give you an example. And with just as much a direct exposure to the music. I've dealt with owners of audio equipment companies who are peddling nicely classy pieces of design which clothes some truly mediocre playback hardware. Does such a CEO know the particulars of his gear? In one case he had a design philosophy but it was driven by a large degree of BS which yielded no real improvements, yet because of the overall design process - i.e. he cranks out some really pretty gear with the patina of quality - he could be sure of firewalled reviews from those who apparently matter (and gets them, too). And he isn't being cynical about selling pretty crud either - he really believes in what he sells (this is the most important part of being part of the audiophile community at large), the 'my ear first' way - with which he managed to alienate some genuinely talented engineers. Equipment developed in isolation, an underlying, fiercely held personal design philosophy with little in the way of engineering validation 'out there', who gets by very well because he's an artist of sorts - it's a very similar, ego-driven mindset to other audiophiles. We have this argument often - what sounds 'good' and what sounds 'better'? The problem is that 'better' is only truly objectively attainable - and a lot of audiophile beliefs, when objectively evaluated, tends to be bunk. That then starts off the 'well, it's what works for me that's important' umbrage-laden departure. I suppose my problem is that I can separate art from technology. I appreciate art for art's sake, but for me to consider it better, it must satisfy objective conditions I develop after some thought - and I don't mind admitting I'm a nerd about it. A lot of other people are more easily amused, and there is where we have our differences. To me there's too variable a range of gear that can sound 'good' in just the right surroundings, the right atmosphere, the right mentality - an too many people who equate a particular kind of 'good' with 'better' without any underlying evidence. I can replicate with reasonably convincing results - from hi-res audio + a PC - the sonic compromises that results in LP playback being 'better' for many audiophiles. But these are imperfections introduced into the audio chain to fool the ear into believing it's being fed a 'smoother' signal. As I said before, I enjoy the ritual of spinning a record sometimes. But rather like the reason I sometimes take an ancient Discman on the move, sitting down with the Mitchell is about the ritual, the image / ambience and the psychological effect that has - and making part of a hobby out of that, than actually going out to enjoy 'better' sound - I do that when I power up the PC's.