The Miracle of Analog Sound

mep · Jun 27, 2012

Recently a question was posed to a WBF member who is a dyed-in-the-wool digital lover if he thinks that we have gotten to the bottom of all the information that is contained in the LP grooves. His answer was a typical digital lover/analog hater answer in that he was dismissive of analog and he stated that we are not capturing any more information from the grooves as tables, tonearms and cartridges have improved.

The fact remains that those of us who never abandoned LPs and have continued to improve the quality of our tables, arms, and cartridges know this is simply not the truth. Every time we make a real improvement to our LP playback system, we are rewarded with hearing more information from the grooves. And for those who abandoned LPs long ago and their mid-fi table/arm/cartridge is lying broken in the bottom of a closet somewhere in their house to tell us otherwise is more than a little presumptuous on their part. The commonly heard saying that “I’m rediscovering my LP collection all over again” after making a major improvement to their LP playback system resonates with us that understand what that really means.

I continue to be perplexed by those who abandoned analog long ago that they are pretentious enough to continue to have opinions on what we hear or don’t hear even though they have no idea of what we are hearing. I for one don’t think that we have gotten to the bottom of what is really encoded in those grooves. And that for me is part of what makes this hobby exciting.

Johnny Vinyl · Jun 27, 2012

Hi Mark,

I don't think we have heard everything residing in those grooves, and may never...who knows. However, I don't think we've heard everything digital is capable of either. Both formats, in terms of their source material and playback equipment are being constantly improved...all for the benefit and enjoyment of the listener. If one closes their mind and chooses to select only one playback method, and trumpets that selection as the true audiophile medium, then pretentiousness can be rightly pointed in that direction.

Additionally...many digital fans are perplexed by the same rhetoric (at times) that analog fans opine about to them. It's tough to convert the converted!

I love vinyl playback and would love to learn more about how to extract the most I can from those magical grooves. Great thread!

Phelonious Ponk · Jun 27, 2012

Expressing an opinion, when asked, is presumptuous? That's interesting.

How exactly do you know that you're getting more information from those grooves, Mark? How do you know that it's not that, as tables have improved, the noise and distortion levels of vinyl have reduced allowing more of what's in those grooves to be revealed? And that, is what I actually said.

Tim

treitz3 · Jun 27, 2012

A friend of mine once said this..."The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to good analogue reproduction".

Ahhh, wise words. Both have their own attributes as well as deficiencies.

Tom

Mike Lavigne · Jun 27, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
Expressing an opinion, when asked, is presumptuous? That's interesting.

How exactly do you know that you're getting more information from those grooves, Mark?

Tim,

i'm not familiar with any specific previous quote of yours that Mark may be referencing.....and don't want to put words in your mouth.

but to answer your question for me, we heard more information from specific pressings over time incrementally with improved playback gear. we also were able to compare these changes to other constant references such as RTR master tape and the vinyl inched ever closer to that reference. and we had confidence in what our ears told us. that is 'knowing' for this listener. YMMV, just my 2 cents, and all that stuff.

How do you know that it's not that, as tables have improved, the noise and distortion levels of vinyl have reduced allowing more of what's in those grooves to be revealed? And that, is what I actually said.

Tim

Tim,

i'm trying to understand the conflict between what Mark said and your point about vinyl playback gear improvement allowing more information already in the grooves to be revealed. that seems obvious. and it seems Mark is saying that too. sorry if i'm missing something.

FrantzM · Jun 27, 2012

Hi

I have read in this very forum from Bruce Brown who did some needle drops (translating a Vinyl to Digital) in DSD that without knowledge of which is which it would be extremely difficult to know which is which .. Michael Fremer himself one of the staunchest analog partisan said something very similar about needle-drops from his Rockport TT ...
That would tend to imply that the digital medium (choose your flavor) is transparent enough to be indistinguishable from analog medium .... Yet such declarations are regularly ignored by analog proponents... It could be more appropriate to use the word "conveniently" in lieu of "regularly" ...
I marvel at the notion of "hearing more information" this is a statement that needs to be proven since it is not one of preference but of superiority... I will not dare or care to ask: Can you prove or do I have to take your word for it? A qualifier such as "I think" or "I believe" would have soften the affirmation ... In the meantime ... I'll try to take your word for it ...

I will note in passing that PPonk is spot on.. If people are asked to opine and this is almost implicit in a public discussion forum it simply can not be "pretentious" to do just that

ffer opinions and views on the subject. As for Tomelex and our decreasing (as a group) hearing acuity ... this could have been depressing if it weren't that I am actually listening to more music than ever .. So it evens out

garylkoh · Jun 27, 2012

I don't think that it's just the miracle of analog sound, there is also the miracle of digital sound. The past 5 years has seen a huge improvement in both analog and digital playback. I'm re-discovering my CD's (ripped to a music server) as much as I'm re-discovering my LP's as both playback systems have improved.

And..... it's not just at the high end. Witness the improvement from the Denon 103 to the Denon A100 cartridges. Both sub-$500.

Mike Lavigne · Jun 27, 2012

FrantzM said:
Hi

I have read in this very forum from Bruce Brown who did some needle drops (translating a Vinyl to Digital) in DSD that without knowledge of which is which it would be extremely difficult to know which is which

he did them in my room, sent them to me, and they are clearly not the vinyl. period. Bruce does not have the same pressings to compare them to, nor the vinyl rig to optimize them. he listened to my vinyl in my room, but not his digital recordings.

.. Michael Fremer himself one of the staunchest analog partisan said something very similar about needle-drops from his Rockport TT ...
That would tend to imply that the digital medium (choose your flavor) is transparent enough to be indistinguishable from analog medium

i've heard these digital recordings of Fremers; i'll just say that not only do they not sound great, but his insistance that they allow him to compare tt's over time is a bit much.

.... Yet such declarations are regularly ignored by analog proponents... It could be more appropriate to used the word "conveniently" in lieu of "regularly" ...they are ignored.

they get the respect they deserve.

I marvel at the notion of "hearing more information" this is a statement that needs to be proven since it is not one of preference but of superiority

well......when one vinyl front end can resolve detail and allow musically significant things to be more clearly heard we can call it more information or less distortion, but it's not a matter of taste. sure; there are other times when one set of gear is tonally different, or might have a slightly different level of frequency extension, or even a different spacial presentation. i agree that comes down to preference mostly, but not always depending on the degree.

is it more real? not that hard to agree about that answer when we listen. more real is better.

... I will not dare or care to ask: Can you prove or do I have to take your word for it? A qualifier such as "I think" or "I believe" would have soften the affirmation ... In the meantime ... I'll try to take your word for it ...

i did do the YMMV thingie in my response to Tim.

I'll save my other comments for your pending visit after you listen.

MylesBAstor · Jun 28, 2012

treitz3 said:
A friend of mine once said this..."The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to good analogue reproduction".

Ahhh, wise words. Both have their own attributes as well as deficiencies.

Tom

That's a paraphrase of what HP wrote in TAS

MylesBAstor · Jun 28, 2012

FrantzM said:
Hi

I have read in this very forum from Bruce Brown who did some needle drops (translating a Vinyl to Digital) in DSD that without knowledge of which is which it would be extremely difficult to know which is which .. Michael Fremer himself one of the staunchest analog partisan said something very similar about needle-drops from his Rockport TT ...
That would tend to imply that the digital medium (choose your flavor) is transparent enough to be indistinguishable from analog medium .... Yet such declarations are regularly ignored by analog proponents... It could be more appropriate to used the word "conveniently" in lieu of "regularly" ...
I marvel at the notion of "hearing more information" this is a statement that needs to be proven since it is not one of preference but of superiority... I will not dare or care to ask: Can you prove or do I have to take your word for it? A qualifier such as "I think" or "I believe" would have soften the affirmation ... In the meantime ... I'll try to take your word for it ...

I will note in passing that PPonk is spot on.. If people are asked to opine and this is almost implicit in a public discussion forum it simply can not be "pretentious" to do just thatffer opinions and views on the subject. As for Tomelex and our decreasing (as a group) hearing acuity ... this could have been depressing if it weren't that I am actually listening to more music than ever .. So it evens out

Or is it that digital is "good enough?" as opposed to indistinguishable. I think the former is what Fremer is saying. I can always ask Mikey to clarify

MylesBAstor · Jun 28, 2012

Mike Lavigne said:
he did them in my room, sent them to me, and they are clearly not the vinyl. period. Bruce does not have the same pressings to compare them to, nor the vinyl rig to optimize them. he listened to my vinyl in my room, but not his digital recordings.

i've heard these digital recordings of Fremers; i'll just say that not only do they not sound great, but his insistance that they allow him to compare tt's over time is a bit much.

they get the respect they deserve.

well......when one vinyl front end can resolve detail and allow musically significant things to be more clearly heard we can call it more information or less distortion, but it's not a matter of taste. sure; there are other times when one set of gear is tonally different, or might have a slightly different level of frequency extension, or even a different spacial presentation. i agree that comes down to preference mostly, but not always depending on the degree.

is it more real? not that hard to agree about that answer when we listen. more real is better.

i did do the YMMV thingie in my response to Tim.

I'll save my other comments for your pending visit after you listen.

Let's look at a short list of the improvements that have come about in the design of analog playback systems over the last decade:

1. Drive systems/micro and macro-speed stability, in part controlling drag issues (see Bill Firebaugh)
2. Platter/plinth resonance control
3. Improved materials, bearings and machining (thanks to the Star Wars technology that seeped into the civilian population) leading to lowered noise floors
4. Better isolation and energy drain paths
5. Less resonant arms eg. instead of having multiple resonances, designing for a single peak and then damping (do I dare mention better internal wiring and connections/less connnections?)
6. Improved arm/cartridge geometry including more meticulous attention to cartridge alignment because of new tools available to the audiophile
7. Better cartridge design (a host of issues here), more exotic stylus shapes, better tracking and tracing of grooves

Need I say more? And Ponk, who is hardly an analog expert, expects us to take at face value that distortion explains it all? C'mon. Well type of distortions are we talking about? There are a slew of them. Not to mention that distortions do not necessarily block information since the ear listens through many of them. One only needs to take a look at the complexity of a record groove under SEM to have a grip on what's going on here! But you'd actually have to hear an analog system to understand unless you're prescient. You and I know only in a simplistic world.

Phelonious Ponk · Jun 28, 2012

Mike Lavigne said:
Tim,

i'm not familiar with any specific previous quote of yours that Mark may be referencing.....and don't want to put words in your mouth.

but to answer your question for me, we heard more information from specific pressings over time incrementally with improved playback gear. we also were able to compare these changes to other constant references such as RTR master tape and the vinyl inched ever closer to that reference. and we had confidence in what our ears told us. that is 'knowing' for this listener. YMMV, just my 2 cents, and all that stuff.

Tim,

i'm trying to understand the conflict between what Mark said and your point about vinyl playback gear improvement allowing more information already in the grooves to be revealed. that seems obvious. and it seems Mark is saying that too. sorry if i'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything.

Tim

FrantzM · Jun 28, 2012

MylesBAstor said:
Or is it that digital is "good enough?" as opposed to indistinguishable. I think the former is what Fremer is saying. I can always ask Mikey to clarify

So you know of an analog copy of an analog medium that is indistinguishable from the original ?
What I really would like to see is more of balanced, fair and cautious approach such as that displayed by Garry L Koh in his last post. Digital has been improving and will continue to do so. it is at a point where many, that includes me are not looking backward. While this will not rule out preferences it would make the discussion more consequent than the : Digital is unlistenable attitude that characterizes too many of your posts on the subject ..
To each his own you are entitled to your opinions.. Try simply not to deliver them as statements of facts.

MylesBAstor · Jun 28, 2012

FrantzM said:
So you know of an analog copy of an analog medium that is indistinguishable from the original ?
What I really would like to see is more of balanced, fair and cautious approach such as that displayed by Garry L Koh in his last post. Digital has been improving and will continue to do so. it is at a point where many, that includes me are not looking backward. While this will not rule out preferences it would make the discussion more consequent than the : Digital is unlistenable attitude that characterizes too many of your posts on the subject ..
To each his own you are entitled to your opinions.. Try simply not to deliver them as statements of facts.

Frantz:

I really don't see how that relates to original question about digital copies. Of course, no copy, tape, or digital (despite what many have said) is perfect.

Bruce has already done demos for me where he made a high rez copy of an analog tape and we compared the two. It's not even close as I've talked about many times here. And as I've said previously (and MikeL added) the biggest issues are that the digital murders the upper octaves, lacks resolution and 3D body.

Mike Lavigne · Jun 28, 2012

FrantzM said:
So you know of an analog copy of an analog medium that is indistinguishable from the original ?
What I really would like to see is more of balanced, fair and cautious approach such as that displayed by Garry L Koh in his last post. Digital has been improving and will continue to do so. it is at a point where many, that includes me are not looking backward. While this will not rule out preferences it would make the discussion more consequent than the : Digital is unlistenable attitude that characterizes too many of your posts on the subject ..
To each his own you are entitled to your opinions.. Try simply not to deliver them as statements of facts.

who is calling digital unlistenable? not i. never. leave analog out of it and we have peace in the valley.

i'm fully committed to and invested in digital.

maybe Myles has a different veiwpoint and maybe not; but there are few analog lovers on this forum who are actively 'anti'. OTOH it's claims of what analog lacks or it's 'faults' without really taking the time and effort to investigate the reality of state of the art analog that gets the reaction.

you asked for 'i believe' and all that qualifying stuff. i'd love to see consistent use of that same qualifier on the analog basher's posts.

FrantzM · Jun 28, 2012

MikeL

Reply was addressed to Myles ... I do not consider myself an analog basher by the way
@myles

They have a have saying in French which could translate in the following: You persist and sign... Now the work of Bruce "murdered" the analog ... Such hyperbole do not advance the debate it demeans the very notion of discussion.

Phelonious Ponk · Jun 28, 2012

And Ponk, who is hardly an analog expert, expects us to take at face value that distortion explains it all?

Ponk is not trying to convince you of anything, Myles. Given the many distortions of vinyl, Ponk is actually giving the modern vinylphiles the benefit of the doubt of supposing that the mechanical advances of recent years have reduced that noise sufficiently to reveal content that was formerly masked. The difference between "finding more" in the grooves and "revealing more" in the same grooves? Not purely semantical, but not significant either.

Tim

MylesBAstor · Jun 28, 2012

FrantzM said:
MikeL

Reply was addressed to Myles ... I do not consider myself an analog basher by the way
@myles

They have a have saying in French which could translate in the following: You persist and sign... Now the work of Bruce "murdered" the analog ... Such hyperbole do not advance the debate it demeans the very notion of discussion.

As they say, you pay your bucks and make your choice.

OK, I'll be the first to admit that digital has gotten better. It couldn't get any worse. The first Sony CDP101s were utterly unlistenable.(After listening for an hour, my ears felt like someone had stuffed cotton in them; so was the reaction of a number of musicians I used to listen with-one of which now owns his own label

).

I'll never forget one of the first digital/vinyl albums I bought: CBS's release of Shostakovich's 5th with Lennie. It was so bad, with utterly no harmonic content, that I thought the record was playing at the wrong speed. I literally went over and had to check the tt's speed. Oh yes, I keep that album for posterity

If you want to argue convenience, mass market sales, sure. But sonically it's not there yet.

The biggest problem for me with digital is on large scale music where I think it really falls down. Smaller scale, solo instruments, not so much.

As far as "murdered." I suggest you do the comparison and pick an adjective that describes what you heard.

Bruce B · Jun 28, 2012

I should set up a little experiment/demo at one of the shows. Take an analog source, be it TT or R2R and split the signal. Have one side going directly to the pre-amp and have the other side go through the best AD/DA chain I have and see if folks can 1: hear a difference and 2: tell which one is the digital loop. Or then again, maybe set up to make it appear that there is an AD/DA loop and see if expectation bias takes over!!

garylkoh · Jun 28, 2012

Bruce B said:
I should set up a little experiment/demo at one of the shows. Take an analog source, be it TT or R2R and split the signal. Have one side going directly to the pre-amp and have the other side go through the best AD/DA chain I have and see if folks can 1: hear a difference and 2: tell which one is the digital loop. Or then again, maybe set up to make it appear that there is an AD/DA loop and see if expectation bias takes over!!

Haha! Exactly! If you want to do TT, with the Burmester Ph100, you don't even have to split the signal..... then let's see how many can tell the difference. I've got a Ph100 with digital output that you could use in the demo

@myles - when we did the digital/analog dialectic at the audio club, the most difficult to tell apart was the large scale orchestral work. There are samples of good as well as bad LPs from digital. The early Soundstream (20bit 50kHz) digitally recorded Telarc LP's were some of the best, I thought.

The Miracle of Analog Sound

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Super Moderator

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)

Similar threads