Haha Gerard - maybe some small additions :
Distortion and resonances in speakers are a lot of times stronger than those in good vinyl recordplayers.
Theoretically true, but practially less useful. Try to think like this :
a. Any distortion in the source is multiplied by the gain (sort of);
b. Next any distortion (always square-like) can't be delt with by exactly that speaker you refer to.
So, 10 times wrongish, the other way around.
Ad b. :
The funny thing is XXHE is so much better then digital replay some years ago and to a lot of people getting closer to the analogue sound.
By stupid software alone ? come on ...
Ah, wait. See b. above.
See ?
At Peter's demonstration it was easy to hear that the higher sampling rates sounded closer to what I like from vinyl.
Although you speak the truth for 100%, that higher sampling rate didn't show you anything even close to what it should be - and *can* be. Ehh, is ? I recall one person
a. knowing my sound reproduction;
b. who was at the demonstration;
c. owns an NOS1.
He may be more objective than I am (or can believed for) ...
Moral for now : don't bind any conclusions to what you heard so far, were that at random fine places or Amersfoort (ditch that experience
).
The naturalness and the true colours and timing of the sound.
Mine : the dullness, slowyness BUT ease (because of that) which makes you drill your ears with anything near by.
I can't help it. But with some "other" experience, it wants you to turn your head inside out, hoping for a more direct and more fresh sound. Something with attack. Something that doesn't show (grayish) cymbals without the attack preceeding it.
It is hard to explain, but the last example is killing; How can you listen to the sound of something, while knowing that that sound can only emerge after hitting it - hence the necessary attack. Oh, I listened to that long enough, but this was without the other experience. Now ? now my brains won't cope anymore. This is more serious that some stupid alinea wanting to make a point. It will make you ill, once you "know" how things should be.
In part it reminds me of the difference of analog and digital photography which is (or will be?) won by the latter..
Nice one. And, IMO is won for some 10 years by now, I think.
But ... not completely true. Digital photography can only win from analogue once you know what to NOT make pictures from, or under what conditions NOT to do that. So, it is more difficult, but once it's under your control you won't know about the differences anymore (read : I have been "struggeling" to make really nice pictures the first few years, and today I couldn't even think of what I did wrong at first ... making photos for over 30 years before that already).
Of course I am trying to find further analogy with audio, but I don't think I can. Or it should be about NOS stuff and its much better base, but its sheer infinitly more difficulties to finish it off properly (with the clear idea that I at last managed, after it being around for over 30 years).
One last hopefully nice thing to think about :
Audio - and its sound quality through loudspeakers is not subjective at all. NOT I said. First though, we need to be over that hurdle and leave the disturbing stuff behind us. I mean, choosing out of disturbances (distortions) and which sounds best, *is* subjective, because always when one thing gets better, the other goes the other way around. This changes when you can compare with reality; I don't need to tell you how a trumpet should sound to my or your speakers. Just blow on one, and you will know ...
Times are really changing ...
