The State Of Analog

[Steve Williams]

I thought that I would put this up in the "Digital" forum only because my good friend Frantz posted a similar thread.

Frantz makes absolute scientific sense in everything he states re digital and its accurate reproduction off the master. He is also dead on when he says where the future of purchasing music lies and that is here on the internet

mep has stated how inexpensive it is to press vinyl and CD I am sure couldn't be too expensive either

My youngest son who is a film school graduate is also a music lover. He listens to my system every now and then. When he does, he has only the kindest of words about how accurate and realistic it sounds BUT hastens to add how nuts I am and that ours is a dying generation when it comes to analog or having music libraries with 1000's of CD's or LP's. His entire music library is on his hard drive and he listens with a small pair of satellites on either side of his screen or with ear phones. He buys all of his music on the internet.

So Frantz my friend, you hit it right on, but if analog is to live on it will only serve an ever declining sector of people.In spite of this the sales of TT's is ever increasing.
For better or worse it is a digital world. Analog, as beautiful as it might sound, ultimately, will saddly pass the way of the Betamax did with the advent of VHS. Most would say Beta was the better format

Anyhow, I don't own a TT but do have my R2R and feel it produces the best sound in my system and to my ears

[Mike Lavigne]

Frantz makes absolute scientific sense in everything he states re digital and its accurate reproduction off the master.

Steve,

with all due respect, you lost me right there. referring to my post from the other thread, if you hear what PCM digital does when trying to reproduce an analog signal, it may be 'accurate' at particular points, but it loses lots of the substance of music in the translation....in other words, PCM digital is incomplete. forget graphs and theorys, just listen to how each format handles a source. if you speak about 2xDSD digital, then you can possibly make a much more credible case of 'accurate reproduction of the master' being a reasonable statement. Frantz does not use 2xDSD as his digital reference; he refers to PCM.

if you start talking about the state of analog by making the case that PCM digital is closer to the master i reject that completely as wholey contrary to my experience.

if some among us have had an experience where they compared a SOTA PCM digital recording with SOTA analog recording of the same analog source and found the PCM version more accurate and complete i'd enjoy hearing about the details.

this is not about science; it's about what one's ears hear.

[Steve Williams]

Actually I was politely trying to say that we analog lovers are a dying breed and unless we find a way to pass this down to the next generations, sadly it will be a thing of the past in the next generation.

Don't get me wrong Mike I am an analog lover and probably misstated my point about Frantz and his digital assertion. I agree with how you stacked the different formats earlier today in the order of sonic excellence

[MylesBAstor]

Steve,

with all due respect, you lost me right there. referring to my post from the other thread, if you hear what PCM digital does when trying to reproduce an analog signal, it may be 'accurate' at particular points, but it loses lots of the substance of music in the translation....in other words, PCM digital is incomplete. forget graphs and theorys, just listen to how each format handles a source. if you speak about 2xDSD digital, then you can possibly make a much more credible case of 'accurate reproduction of the master' being a reasonable statement. Frantz does not use 2xDSD as his digital reference; he refers to PCM.

if you start talking about the state of analog by making the case that PCM digital is closer to the master i reject that completely as wholey contrary to my experience.

if some among us have had an experience where they compared a SOTA PCM digital recording with SOTA analog recording of the same analog source and found the PCM version more accurate and complete i'd enjoy hearing about the details.

this is not about science; it's about what one's ears hear.

This was my limited experience with a live vs. recorded digital master recording as reported from this year's CES. Disclaimer: I may have been in the minority according to what I've read Now if digital couldn't do something as simple as a guitar, how can one expect it to something more complex such as an orchestra?

One additional thing I've found from being in the studio with David Chesky a while back (and I think most mastering engineers I've spoken with agree with me) is that there's more loss of music in going from the hard disc to the final CD than in going from the master tape to the record. If one had an opportunity to hear a digital master, they're in for a surprise. Still not perfect, but a better representation of the music than the CD.

So one can't go and use the CD as an example of digital at its best. And a while back, Steve Hoffman posted on his web site that he thought the fidelity to the master tape ranked in this order: LP, CD and then SACD!!!! So here's some one who has THE master tape -- and to boot as SOTA system as opposed to some Genelex monitors-- to compare with and comes up with this conclusion.

From PFO/CES Show Report that I did this year:

3. VMPS Speakers - Speaker designer Brian Cheney gave a new meaning to bringing your own music to the show. Brian brought along his own musicians to demonstrate the faithfulness of his newest speaker design, the $12,900 VMPS RM50 dual line source bi-pole (with digital controller) speakers driven by Atmasphere MA1 OTLs on the mid/treble and dual Classe M1000 monoblocks for the bass towers, to live music. Show attendees got to hear the artists perform live and then do the Memorex test.

Now the listening comparisons weren't exactly isosonic as different types of microphones were used with the different recording platforms. A pair of M Audio Sputnik tube condenser microphones in MS (mid-side), one forward facing in cardioid and one sideways in figure 8 for 180 degree stereo spread fed an Alesis Masterlink 24/88.2 PCM recorder while a single Audio Technica stereo mike in XY, 110 degree spread fed a Korg M1000 DSD.

I was lucky enough sit in on the sessions starring finger style guitarist Austin Wey and performing with two different types of guitars. As far as the listening comparisons, we're once again we're faced with famous Russian geneticist T.D. Lysenko paradox. Lysenko, in his efforts to appease Stalin and feed the Russian people, decided to cross a radish with a cabbage in a vain attempt to produce a vegetable with the radish bulb and cabbage head; instead Lysenko ended up with a vegetable with the radishes leaves and cabbage roots.

What emerged, ultimately, from the live vs. recorded comparison was that neither digital recording technique was remotely close to the sound of the live performance (a 15 ips, 2-track, ¼ inch open reel deck would have blown both digital recorders away!). In fact, the 24/88.2 PCM was really bad. One listener remarked that the guitar had more body with the 24/88.2 PCM; that was only because there was nothing else to subtract. Both digital recorders lost the guitar's delicateness and softness, the silence between notes, the difference in sound between the two models of guitar and most of the harmonic overtones—not to mention the instrument sounded larger than life. But Brian did prove that his speakers are more than capable—and of course a guitar recording should show off his ribbon drivers to their utmost—of resolving all the issues with digital recordings!

[FrantzM]

MikeL

The way we hear can be explained by current Science. We don't know it all but we have tools that will further our knowledge and the tools are revealing that digital can be and is good. The best Digital I have heard to date is the HRx , it is the best I have heard in a music reproduction system in term of portraying what I think I hear live. Not CD, CD is good often better than analog in some aspects, but overall the best analog seem to surpass the best CD but not the best PCM. CD is PCM but PCM is not CD only ...
I have repeated Audio reproduction is bound by the laws of Physic, thus science. The best TT push the limits of what is possible but simply because they have better tools, these tools developed by science, much sensitive measuring equipment. What we are doing in TT right now we could not do it 20 years ago. The tools were not available. Some of the material may not have been available either .. What have brought these advances? Science .. There is not dichotomy between what we hear and Science.. I will be the first to admit however that many of our common measurements parameters are not very well related to what we hear .. THD for one. We do need to advance the art of music reproduction to correlate better what we hear to what we measure.. We have not done a great job of this especially in the USA where there is no equivalent of the NRC ?? the place in Canada where several manufacturers and some reviewers measure speakers and other electronics??? In Europe there are such centers and they will provide insight in what we hear, perhaps why set is so spooky, so realistic, on Voices. Or why the Quad ESl-57 and the 63 where so pure on Voice. If we ONLY measure the FR or the THD, we would not know ... So Science has its place.. We enjoy music because of science. The better Audio designers have a firm, call it commanding understanding of Science, some to a surprising degree ...
You have an incredible analog front end and I can understand you preferring it.. I would say that most CD will not sway you .. but Digital is there .. same way SS are up there with the best tubes in the way they produce music .. often better in many respects if not all ...

Frantz

[Mike Lavigne]

The best Digital I have heard to date is the HRx

i have 6 or 7 HRx's on my hard drive as well as a few other hi-rez RR recordings too. i do really enjoy them and they are among the best PCM i have heard.

the mastering engineer who has mastered every RR recording for 20 years is Paul Stubblebine. yes, 'that' Paul Stubblebine of 'The Tape Project'. if anyone would have an informed opinion about how native 176/24 might compare to native analog tape then Paul would be that guy as many of the RR's were done with 176/24 and RTR recording the same event simultainiously. both formats enjoyed the the same mic feeds as an identical source.

i'll allow you to take a wild guess which format Paul thinks 'smokes' the other one. i have maybe 30-40 RR Lps (and a similar amount of RR CD's).....as well as a few 'The Tape Project' Reference Recording tapes. my personal perspective is that i really enjoy the HRx recordings and listen to them often. but the Lps simply better them in every way.

a few years ago a digital recording was made using my Rockport tt as a source. one recorder used was the Pacific Microsonics II at 176/24. the same recorder used for the RR HRx 176/24 files. we spent 8 hours recording off my tt, then playing back the 176/24 file. we did many test recordings. the 176/24 file did sound very nice; but it did not come close to sounding anywhere near the Rockport direct. that was in my room. the pro audio guys were surprised by hearing this as they had not been exposed to very high end vinyl.

i'm not negative on hi-rez PCM or HRx or any digital. it is over 50% of my listening and it sounds wonderful. i only get my dander up when people are compelled to interpret their considerable enjoyment of hi-rez digital as proof that it must be better than SOTA analog.

it's not.

[JackD201]

I'm a little bit more optimistic. I for one am 39 years old. To put that into perspective, my formative years were smack in the middle of the analog to digital mass market transition. I was 17 when I bought my first CD and I was 21 when major labels stopped pressing LPs. Like many, I was dumb enough to let my entire LP collection go equating the disappearance from the aisles to the death of the medium. I only went back to quality LPs at the age of 33 after hearing at a friend's house how far LP playback had come along.

What I am optimistic about is the durability of the LP medium. Even today it is not uncommon, unfortunately not cheap either, to find 40 or 50 year old LPs in near mint condition. I'm looking at myself now, as many of my other friends do, as guardians for the next generation. We could all collectively assure that there will be a recorded history of culture easily another 40 or 50 years if we are careful. My eldest daughter aged 10, is getting into it. She is my fully automated RCM hahahaha. She's allowed to play with the SL-1200s and tags along with me when I go LP hunting. So if ever you guys are over and see LPs of Lady Gaga or Ne-Yo, look at her not me. I'm thinking pretty soon she'll be given permission to use the expensive carts. She has steadier hands than I do, I'm just waiting for her to be able to appreciate what the darned things cost to assure that each time out she exercises the utmost care. I think I'll be less nervous the first time I put her behind the wheel 6 years from now. Carts don't have airbags!

Much as I love tape most of all, despite reasonable care by my folks, all have turned into messes of ferrite dust. Makes me want to cry but that's just the way it is.

I see the time coming however when eventually my eyesight will fail and my hands will shake. It will be all digital for me then or maybe my kids or grand kids can cue 'em up for me

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm a little bit more optimistic. I for one am 39 years old. To put that into perspective, my formative years were smack in the middle of the analog to digital mass market transition. I was 17 when I bought my first CD and I was 21 when major labels stopped pressing LPs. Like many, I was dumb enough to let my entire LP collection go equating the disappearance from the aisles to the death of the medium. I only went back to quality LPs at the age of 33 after hearing at a friend's house how far LP playback had come along.

What I am optimistic about is the durability of the LP medium. Even today it is not uncommon, unfortunately not cheap either, to find 40 or 50 year old LPs in near mint condition. I'm looking at myself now, as many of my other friends do, as guardians for the next generation. We could all collectively assure that there will be a recorded history of culture easily another 40 or 50 years if we are careful. My eldest daughter aged 10, is getting into it. She is my fully automated RCM hahahaha. She's allowed to play with the SL-1200s and tags along with me when I go LP hunting. So if ever you guys are over and see LPs of Lady Gaga or Ne-Yo, look at her not me. I'm thinking pretty soon she'll be given permission to use the expensive carts. She has steadier hands than I do, I'm just waiting for her to be able to appreciate what the darned things cost to assure that each time out she exercises the utmost care. I think I'll be less nervous the first time I put her behind the wheel 6 years from now. Carts don't have airbags!

Much as I love tape most of all, despite reasonable care by my folks, all have turned into messes of ferrite dust. Makes me want to cry but that's just the way it is.

I see the time coming however when eventually my eyesight will fail and my hands will shake. It will be all digital for me then or maybe my kids or grand kids can cue 'em up for me

agree on the point of 'we are caretakers' of our music, spcifically our Lps. reasonably cared for they'll be around for 100 more years or more. i see and hear 'zero' audible wear on Lps i've played thousands of times (at least many hundreds of times).

regarding your tapes. i would have the tapes you really like transferred to tape with modern formulation that can last 'almost indefinitely'. there are ways to recover many marginal condition tapes. over at The Tape Project Forum there are guys which can direct you to people who do this and do it well. it's important to then store them at correct temperature and humidity and play them every year or so so they don't 'meld' togther.

[mep]

I find myself in agreement with MikeL more times than not. Although I don't have the caliber of digital playback gear that many of you have, I do have a digital music server that is capable of playing back files at 24 bit/192kHz resolution. I also have several CD/SACD players. Digital doesn't come close to either my table or R2R so I hardly ever listen. I seem to use it mainly for burning in new components and cables. I put it on shuffle (via Media Monkey) and leave the room most of the time. Maybe if I had megabuck digital gear I would think differently-maybe not.

With the exception of the availability of new prerecorded R2R tapes, I feel that we are living in the golden age of analog right now. Life is good.

Mark

[audioguy]

There is "accurate" and then there is "accurate".

I'm pretty confident that there are certain measurable characteristics from playing an LP that are far below those same measurements from playing the CD so in that sense the CD is more "accurate". But that assumes we understand EVERYTHING about the human hearing process and I, for one, am convinced we do not. And hence we do not know everything that needs to be measured.

There are some things about digital sonically that I prefer (outside of the convenience of, for example, a music server). But if I look at the total listenng experience, LP is clearly the winner.

As stated elsewhere, I have the latest LP pressing of the Sheffield Drum and Test recording and the XRCD pressing of the same album. When someone visits, I first play the CD and without exception, everyone is amazed at how real the drums sound. I then play the LP and no one believes how much better the LP sounds --- not even close.

I have other recording where I have duplicates and in no case is the digital version better.

Digital is great and getting better. I just upgraded my qSonix so I can play the new hi-re files. I'll still take analog.