Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

"Since you mentioned hospital lighting,the next time you go in for an operation, ask them to do the job by candle lite ,because it makes you feel more comfortable.”

Thank you for making my point. Your interest seems to focus on the science of reproducing sound. Notice that I didn’t say music, I said sound. And that’s fine. But not for me. I can’t prove what I believe - that music has a substance and appeal that goes beyond what our cognitive mind can even hear. But take all the sound measurements you want of a piece of music, and I’ll bet that those measurements can be duplicated non-musically.

Only a fool believes that the more facts he has, the closer to the truth he is.
And I would suggest the same relation holds between details and music. Music is more that a collection of details. And I’ll go even further and say that, IMO, it is possible for details to actually lead away from the musical truth.

There is no rationality to our enjoyment of music. It’s appeal has nothing to do logic or reasoning. But those are exactly the tools that some of us insist on using in order to determine musicality. I think it’s fair to ask: When does sound become music? When I was 9 years old, I began taking trumpet lessons. My family and neighbors would take great issue with anyone who suggested that the product was ever musical.

Phaelon, as you may be aware, many modern composers in fact believe that all noise, even silence, is music. John Cage being the primary exponent of the theory. Nice post, by the way.

“...even silence, is music."

Hey! That’s what my neighbors used to say :-)

RE***The intense lighting in a hospital operating room will be more revealing than the light emanating from a fireplace, but I will always prefer to gaze at, even the most flawlessly beautiful woman, by firelight. It’s not less truthful, it’s just another aspect of the truth.***

I like that.

Did anyone get the point i was trying to make with the "moving goal post analogy" and the "inherent futility of seeking... quote unquote... "hi fidelity" across a BROAD range of recordings?

Am i alone and crazy on this point or what? Yay or nay? (smile)

While i can appreciate how moving up to more exotic gear (so called "higher fidelity"(yes and no)) can improve the sound of SOME recordings ...I don't appreciate what it does to OTHER recordings. These other recordings, i would argue are not necessarily "poor" recordings. SOME of these just APPEAR to be poor. The problem is...that the system is too revealing so as to not compliment certain BRANDS of recordings.

Take for example... "tape hiss". If a state of the art system reveals tape hiss but a lesser system does not and therefore does not let that aspect interfere with the music...How can it be said that the state of the art system is categorically better? Isn't a system that doesn't reveal the tape hiss but still keeps the music in tact, isn't it actually "better" since being able to hear the "tape hiss" wasn't the goal or intention of either the producers or the artists as part of the playback? That is they would not want or expect a system to playback the "hiss" ALONG with THEIR MUSIC and have it be called a good playback system.

It doesn't mean they had a "weak system" with which they recorded since they couldn't spot the hiss when they were in the studio mixing room. For that time it might very well be they had a very good studio system.

So, say you are sincere about your quest for hi fidelity and want to make no compromises in any area!...how are you going to get it across a broad range of music? ..."hi fidelity" (hi fidelity my foot!)

It seems we would need to own several system's to accommodate each era of recording quality and "type". Now, if you don't want to do that (i certainly don't)...you're basically stuck? How do you achieve your goal of hi fidelity? You don't. You ultimately have to compromise. But "hi fidelity" and "compromise" ...to me... is a contradiction in terms? That's my beef with "hifi". (I mean, i am happy and content with hifi in some areas but in others i am not)

Some recordings are in fact not poor (as some highly resolving system would seem to tell), they are just DIFFERENT and are better served on a different kind of system belonging to that period.

Their will of course be exceptions and it should be understood this is true in degrees.

Take for example the 80's ? song "never surrender" by cory hart.

Why can it be said that on my lesser system years back, i concluded it to be a "great sounding recording" and with my new system i conclude it to be a "good sounding recording"?

The former was more pleasurable than the latter. What criteria or test do we determine the truth of whether or not it is a good recording? The new system?.... that reveals "a tape hiss" or ...the older system?... that does not?

Which is "hi fidelity" in this one specific example and which is not?

On a different recording you may have a different winner.

***The intense lighting in a hospital operating room will be more revealing than the light emanating from a fireplace, but I will always prefer to gaze at, even the most flawlessly beautiful woman, by firelight. It’s not less truthful, it’s just another aspect of the truth.***

Beauty or truth?

Maybe the best way to determine whether or not one has a "hi fidelity" system is to ask oneself "how MUSICAL is this system...how much do i enjoy listening to ALL my collection?"(irregardless of ANYTHING else...) and when you can say it is in fact very musical! then you have in fact found YOUR brand of "hi fidelity".

.

Ever heard the term,"the devil is in the details"?

Or, "you ain't heard nothing yet"?

All music is sound,not all sound is music.

The novice musician can make sounds on his instrument of choice,it takes time and practise to make music.

It also takes time and patience and the practise of trial and error to bring out the hidden details in a piece of recorded music.

When someone purchases a pair of pants, would they be content if what they brought home only had one pant's leg?

And yet this is what so many music lovers,or the folks who aren't concerned about retrieving all the details,would have us believe.

They are perfectly content with the sound of their systems and don't feel the need to push the envelope.

I find the pursuit of details and lost nuggets of musical information to be very stimulating, and as such, a night of listening is a real adventure.

My guess is that the other half are more comfortable with a system that is less than resolving, and less revealing of inner detail.Or a one pant leg pair of pants system.

Well I know we all fly by the seat of our pants when we build our systems,but it seems that the folks who are content with one pant's leg are mostly unaware that the other pant's leg is missing.Perhaps, also unaware that there is a whole world out there enjoying pants with two pant's legs.

So while I seek to stimulate my senses, others are seeking to numb their senses.
A numbing down of society?

Or maybe they have never heard a system that can retrieve loads of inner detail that can also be very easy on the ears?

Someone has mentioned that audiophiles tune their systems and so that only certain types of music or components sound pleasing to their ears.

That's true.
That's why there are so many different companies and components to choose from.Aren't we lucky?

We get to decide.
No one is telling us what to choose.

When I was younger, all that mattered to me was how deep and loud I could make the bass go in my system.So I voiced my system with gear that gave me that.

I've moved on, and discovered that there's a lot of other things that are more important. And that great bass by and of itself is only one aspect of music.There's more to the equation.
Balance is a word that comes to mind, and a well balanced system is lacking nothing nor is there too much of anything.And that goes for detail.

How can you have too much detail?
You can't add anymore detail than was on the recording, but you sure can loose a lot of it.

Everything needs to be in it's place,just the way it's was intended to be at the recording session.
If the background vocals weren't integral to the music then why did they bother recording them ?
Why then,settle for a system that will keep them hidden?

It's all music,you paid for it, the producer charged you for it,but you don't care to listen to it?
It's too much information?

If it is then accuracy doesn't matter at all.
Give me meat and potatoes, or so it would seem.
Anything else and it's a waste of my chewing time.

The old bass heavy system of years gone by was lacking in resolution, but it rocked, even if I didn't know there were three guitars four background singers and several other assorted instruments buried in the muck.

When I revisit those old recordings from my youth and play them on my system today, I am amazed at how much more there is to them besides bass whacks.I enjoy them on a completely different level today.

Coming at this topic from a muscian's point of view, there is as much music in the space between the notes as there is in the notes themselves.

If all the spaces and the notes are blurred or indistinguishable, how can the music be enjoyed?If you can't hear all that the recording engineer put into the recording,you are doing him, the artist and yourself a disservice.

If only a portion of the musical information is retrieved, then one is only enjoying a portion of the musical experience.You are denying yourself the full experience.
It's the sundae without the whipped cream and cherry on top.

Which brings up another old saying, "you don't know what you are missing".