Hi-Fi..Analogue V's Digital

[Algonquin]

Thanks for the pointers to other threads folks. Perhaps I should have UTFSE.............my excuse ....I was tired..........
some interesting views raised both here and in the other threads (although the Neil Young thread did boggle my brain somewhat...Thanks Jim & MBE!). I'm obviously gonna have to do more research.

Two things spring to mind, one of which maybe you clever folks could help to explain.......in laymans terms please.........how come music ripped from a cd onto one of these new fangled streaming devices (I'm thinking Linn DS or Naim Unity etc.) sounds so good, possibly even better than the original cd does when played back? Simply a case of equipment differences, or is there some "snake oil" voodoo stuff going on?

...and secondly, just a thought, but aside from all of this debate re. analogue v's digital, sample rates, gear used during the recording process etc, aren't we missing the point that new (digital) technology has made music far more accessible to far more people.........music is supposed to be about enlightenment and enjoyment, and the more accessible it is, irrespective of playback quality especially when most don't notice or care, then surely the better overall? This (IMO) also applies to recording digitally and the relative ease this brings, although I cant help notice the number of DAW plug-ins that emulate old analogue gear.

Oh, and finally I agree about the convenience of digital v's ANY other format........I've spent the last year or so with the convenience of click and listen -accessibility over quality.....vinyl can be a pain, but also a tactile pleasure....I'm thinking Jethro Tull's Thick As A Brick, Zep's Physical Grafitti just to name 2 classics I own....there are many others.

Cheers,

Al

[JimFiore]

Two things spring to mind, one of which maybe you clever folks could help to explain.......in laymans terms please.........how come music ripped from a cd onto one of these new fangled streaming devices (I'm thinking Linn DS or Naim Unity etc.) sounds so good, possibly even better than the original cd does when played back? Simply a case of equipment differences, or is there some "snake oil" voodoo stuff going on?

Well, the same data was ripped from the CD by the new system that's fed to the CD player's circuitry. If they sound different then you can pretty much point to the playback systems (all the back to the DAC). There is no snake oil or voodoo, it's all science and engineering.

Keep this in mind: Suppose you make a photocopy of a document. The copy can't be more accurate than the original because the whole idea of the copy is to be as close as is possible to the original. Inaccuracy is then defined by any deviation from the original. BUT, that doesn't mean that you might prefer the copy over the original. For example, the copy might exhibit increased contrast making it easier to read, but this is, in fact, an inaccuracy; the original has not been rendered as faithfully as possible.

[Burning Tires]

I just read the marketing material on the Linn DS website. Says "better sound" is due to the elimination of disc read errors caused by older CD players and degraded discs. And no moving parts to mess up. So theoretically it can't sound better than a new disc on a new CD player.

How much are these real issues, and how much is just marketing? I thought CD's pretty much last forever if they're taken good care of. I don't think my players sound worse over time either.

[JimFiore]

CDs are not a perfect medium and include error correcting data to eliminate or reduce data loss due to surface imperfections, laser mistracking, etc. Even if you have a perfect CD the player could have a misaligned laser which would lead to errors (technically, you'd measure the BER or Bit Error Rate. If the BER is too high the error correcting data will be insufficient to fully recover the lost data and you'll get a tick or pop sound).