The biggest difference I hear between digital and analog

[mep]

It’s Super Bowl Sunday morning and I thought I would stir things up a bit with the truth and get the juices flowing in time for the big game. As I was listening to music last night (and that would have been digital, LP, and tape), it dawned on me that the biggest difference I now hear between analog and digital is the upper frequency range. For whatever reason, the top end on both LP and tape sounds like it is blown wide open compared to digital. It just sounds like it goes on forever.

Now here’s the deal, if I only listened to digital, I probably wouldn’t know anything was amiss and I could easily convince myself that I was hearing “perfect sound forever.” If digital is the only medium you listen to at home, your ears adjust to that medium and you are happy with what you hear. If you are an objectivist, you become even more happy because you can pull out your specification sheet while you are listening to digital music and remind yourself how perfect digital is. That is until you put on an LP or tape…

So on this Super Bowl Sunday morning, I’m asking my fellow audiophile brethren that listen to at least two if not all three sources if they hear the same thing I’m hearing. For me, it is getting to be a stark contrast between the sound of digital and analog. One has a closed in sounding top end, while the other seems to have no limits by comparison. It’s not subtle either. This is not one of those differences you need to strain to hear.

Now, unless all of my analog brethren report back that I’m full of crap and the top end on their high-priced digital spread sounds just like their analog source material, I highly recommend that those who are strictly wedded to the digital format go and visit someone who has a decent setup and can play back LPs and maybe tape and compare that to digital for you so you can hear for yourself. I honestly think you will be shocked at the difference. And not the type of shocked where you get a smug grin on your face and feel all self-righteous about how great your system is and you can’t wait to get home so you can bask in its digital glory.

I have previously written that I was achieving a convergence of sound between my sources and it’s true to a point. But that point ends with top end performance and that is where analog is separating itself from digital at my house.

 

[RogerD]

It’s Super Bowl Sunday morning and I thought I would stir things up a bit with the truth and get the juices flowing in time for the big game. As I was listening to music last night (and that would have been digital, LP, and tape), it dawned on me that the biggest difference I now hear between analog and digital is the upper frequency range. For whatever reason, the top end on both LP and tape sounds like it is blown wide open compared to digital. It just sounds like it goes on forever.

Now here’s the deal, if I only listened to digital, I probably wouldn’t know anything was amiss and I could easily convince myself that I was hearing “perfect sound forever.” If digital is the only medium you listen to at home, your ears adjust to that medium and you are happy with what you hear. If you are an objectivist, you become even more happy because you can pull out your specification sheet while you are listening to digital music and remind yourself how perfect digital is. That is until you put on an LP or tape…

So on this Super Bowl Sunday morning, I’m asking my fellow audiophile brethren that listen to at least two if not all three sources if they hear the same thing I’m hearing. For me, it is getting to be a stark contrast between the sound of digital and analog. One has a closed in sounding top end, while the other seems to have no limits by comparison. It’s not subtle either. This is not one of those differences you need to strain to hear.

Now, unless all of my analog brethren report back that I’m full of crap and the top end on their high-priced digital spread sounds just like their analog source material, I highly recommend that those who are strictly wedded to the digital format go and visit someone who has a decent setup and can play back LPs and maybe tape and compare that to digital for you so you can hear for yourself. I honestly think you will be shocked at the difference. And not the type of shocked where you get a smug grin on your face and feel all self-righteous about how great your system is and you can’t wait to get home so you can bask in its digital glory.

I have previously written that I was achieving a convergence of sound between my sources and it’s true to a point. But that point ends with top end performance and that is where analog is separating itself from digital at my house.

Mark I'll just say that the Analog is more open sounding or more at ease. Your point about the high end character fits nicely a long those line too.

But others don't despair my digital sounds so good that it's more of what music do I want to play at the given moment than anything else.

Enjoy the game...but I won't be watching.

 

[JackD201]

There is very believable explanation to it. It's not gonna be popular with either side though. For those that work on film sound however, it's an everyday thing.

 

[mep]

Let's hear it Jack.

 

[JackD201]

Have mercy on the time shifted. It's 2 AM here. A tidbit to think about.

"Noise is your friend"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And here is the fundamental problem with our on-going analog/digital debate, beyond the fact that your new debating technique is to open it up in the general audio forum while pre-dismissing the POV of anyone who dsoesn't currently have analog sources in their personal systems (ie: anyone likely to disagree with you)....

It’s Super Bowl Sunday morning and I thought I would stir things up a bit with the truth and get the juices flowing in time for the big game.

Truth, unless you're talking about capital T religious Truth, always has something to back it up besides opinions. If the top end of analog "goes on forever" that should be very easy to demonstrate. If you've got some game, it's Super Bowl Sunday, bring it on. But if you're merely soliciting affirmation from the faithful while making sure you do it in front of the heathens, mission accomplished.

Tim

 

[mep]

I'm not dismissing anything Tim. I just want to know if people hear the same difference I do between analog and digital. I'm sticking my neck out there and saying what I hear between the two. Now, I'm wide open to the fact that my digital front end is not as expensive as what many on this forum own, specially my D/A converter; and others may be able to play back the digits more perfectly than I can play them back and maybe there is no difference in the upper frequencies between analog and digital. I doubt it, but it may be possible.

I try to keep my system updated in my profile so anyone who wants to know what I'm listening through can easily see and render their judgments on what I say accordingly. I don't think I have added the music 'server' that I put together based on Gary's excellent article. It's a Toshiba laptop that has been hot-rodded to play back music files via Windows 7 and Foobar (the latest version). I have my Iphone set up so that I can control the server from my listening chair which is pretty cool. Everything else in my system should be current.

I believe you can do some google searches and find plenty of articles that show the frequency response that the LP is capable of as well as R2R. Unlike RB digital, it doesn't hit a brick wall at 22 kHz. Does that explain the difference? Hell if I know. And yes, I would like to know if other people have the same perception as I do. I could be out in left field and everyone else with expensive gear could say they hear no difference between analog and digital in the upper frequencies.

 

[RogerD]

I'll just add that ambient info sounds more compelling if the master is originally analog.

 

[LenWhite]

As I was listening to music last night (and that would have been digital, LP, and tape), it dawned on me that the biggest difference I now hear between analog and digital is the upper frequency range. For whatever reason, the top end on both LP and tape sounds like it is blown wide open compared to digital. It just sounds like it goes on forever.

I recall reading a John Atkinson quote sometime last year in Stereophile stating while lp middle frequencies are equivalent to 20-bits, that medium has problems at the lower and higher frequency ranges.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If capability is the only criteria, Mark, this is easy. Hi res digital "goes on forever" too. Forever and several days pointlessly beyond human hearing. So no, that's not what you're hearing. You didn't need to exclude everyone without an analog source or refer to your personal perception as "the truth" to get there.

Of course we've said nothing about what's up there in that extended range, what the microphones were/are capable of putting on tape, or what the practical limits of analog sources are, regardless of their "capabilities." A slightly more nuanced discussion. A significantly more nuanced truth.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

If capability is the only criteria, Mark, this is easy.

Of course we've said nothing about what's up there in that extended range, what the microphones were/are capable of putting on tape, or what the practical limits of analog sources are, regardless of their "capabilities." A slightly more nuanced discussion. A significantly more nuanced truth.

Tim

This point has been hashed over many times....analog tape is the best medium for capturing the complete range of recorded frequencies. It is a shame that the improvement of analog tape and their machines only have a dedicated niche in a shrinking recording industry. But a few continue to make incremental steps to improve the format.

the real question is how good can tape get and will digital ever equal tape?

 

[mep]

Tim-everyone is welcome to play. It's just hard to have a well-rounded opinion when your only source is digital. Like I said, if all you listen to is digital at home, that becomes your defacto standard and all is right in your world. I get that. If analog is but a distant memory that lies broken in the bottom of a closet somewhere in your house, it's hard to tiptoe down memory lane and conjur up the ghosts of analog past. And for those who have forsaken all sources except digital, it really doesn't matter does it?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yep Tom, accuracy and preference are two different things. Evidently so are accuracy and "best," and accuracy and "truth."

Tim

 

[mep]

Well now, we have the dichotomy of what measures more accurately with test equipment and what sounds more accurate to the sounds we hear in nature with our ears. So, if my ears tell me analog sounds more accurate and natural and in sync with what I hear every day of my life as I walk around the portion of the earth that I inhabit, I’m going with me ears.

And I’m telling you that the high end on both LPs and tape (especially tape) is so blown wide open compared to digital that I have made my mind up on which one more accurately depicts how music sounds in real life played live. And it’s only when you contrast the two in your house, in your room, in your system that you will understand because your system provides the anchor of your sonic reality.

What HP said so many years ago is still true, albeit to a slightly lesser degree because I do think we have learned how to record and play back digital better over the years. And what HP said was that if you want to enjoy digital, quit listening to analog. And for many of you, that’s not an issue because you gave up on analog long ago and have grazed in the pasture of digital perfection happily ever since.

And I do enjoy my digital, but there is a reason why I play it first and not second or third. Taken on its own terms, it sounds damn good. It still sounds damn good compared to analog, it just doesn’t sound as good. And really, this is the second part of the thread that I started before when I asked people who owned all three sources to rank them according to their sonic excellence. My ranking was:

1. Tape
2. LP
3. Digital

Most people who have all three sources agreed with my rankings. One person did put DSD in second place, but everyone who owns all three sources put tape first. In the second part of this thread, I am discussing why digital comes in third and if for no other reason, it’s the high frequencies. Digital for the most part doesn’t get it right in my opinion. Why? I don’t know. The measurements tell us it’s perfect. What the measurements don’t tell us is why recorded sound via digital doesn’t capture all of the sound that we hear with our ears in real time in a live situation. Not that analog is perfect (and unlike digital, it never claimed to be perfect), but it just seems to capture sound that more resembles what we hear in nature. And that always strikes a chord in me.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I'm a vinyl guy and I like and prefer the sound of vinyl, although I would never claim its better and I certainly couldn't argue my way out of a paper bag with reasons. I like it not only for the sonic qualities I enjoy, but also the overall experience in the way I listen to it. Listening to vinyl is a process, and that to me is a very enjoyable part of the experience. It heightens my anticipation of whatever I'm about to let my ears enjoy. I don't think many people consider that as a factor, but I think it is part of it. I am absolutely convinced that if you could listen to vinyl as easily as digital, the divide amongst the camps wouldn't be nearly as great.

 

[RogerD]

Hi Roger, you are very clear that you say analog tape captures the complete range of recorded frequencies...but I think Hi-Rez digital captures up past 100Khz.

So, I can not agree with your statement. Maybe many have a preference for the distortions of analog tape, but that does not make it more "accurate" and thats a fine distinction.

For example, ever find any IMD specs for analog tape at say +6 db where a fellow member is hitting and even higher on his tapes for sale?
Nope. How about simple THD at say 20 hz or 20Khz... Nope.

Just sayin....accuracy and preference are two different things.

The preference for analog by many (and I live with both analog and digital and enjoy both) is just that, a preference. Measurements, even simple THD reveal that there is a disconnect between accuracy to the recording and what folks think "sounds best".

Tom

Hi Tom,

Ok I think we have some common ground here. Like Mark makes the point tape sounds better than CD. Only if you compare the two and I have many times,especially pre-recorded vs RB and DVD. I was lucky enough to purchase a copy of Ormandy / John Williams /Rodrigo concerto reel tape 7.5 ips and compare to the excellant RB Cd. The tape has better separation,expecially in ambient info which makes for a more effortless and natural rendition. Is anything missing between the two? If so why and why does the tape's presentation perceived as more natural?

 

[mep]

Yep Tom, accuracy and preference are two different things. Evidently so are accuracy and "best," and accuracy and "truth."

Tim

And so is reality. Unlike you, I’m not anti-high end, anti-audiophile, and anti-you can make improvements to your system. I’m not the one that stood out on the edge of a cliff on a windy day and proclaimed that for a few thousand dollars I could assemble a system of ‘pro gear’ that would beat many very high-end systems. I never thought that the ‘be all-end all’ of audio was a laptop, $1800 preamp/DAC, and a pair of ‘pro speakers’ that nose dive at 60 Hz. I think it takes a lot more than that.

I think the attitude you bring to this forum would be better suited for a forum called “What’s Barely Good Enough For You Audiophile Fools is Way Better Than What I Need” than WBF. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

 

[RogerD]

Yep Tom, accuracy and preference are two different things. Evidently so are accuracy and "best," and accuracy and "truth."

Tim

Tim,

You remind me of a trial lawyer.....

 

[fas42]

Digital for the most part doesn’t get it right in my opinion. Why? I don’t know. The measurements tell us it’s perfect. What the measurements don’t tell us is why recorded sound via digital doesn’t capture all of the sound that we hear with our ears in real time in a live situation. Not that analog is perfect (and unlike digital, it never claimed to be perfect), but it just seems to capture sound that more resembles what we hear in nature. And that always strikes a chord in me.

I've stated over and over again what the problem is, but because it hasn't come from a "recognised expert" it has no validity of course, but for the newcomers here, the answer is quite straightforward. Digital sound is very fragile compared to analoge, for the very reason that it contains so much information compared to analoge. And it is extremely vulnerable to interference; far more than all these silly level of distortion measurements reveal. Thus, if digital is not working right, which is nearly always the case, it can easily end up sounding like a confused, harsh, congealed, monotonous mess. Since people tend not to like such noises, they "voice" their systems to reduce that level of unpleasantness, thereby throwing out the baby with bathwater. If they "fix" their systems in other ways to improve the quality of analogue replay the digital replay is still suffering, in part, from their earlier "tuning" of the system sound.

So the end result is like the situation Mark is talking of, digital is just boring, somewhat lifeless, no "guts". My friend who has both LP and CD, unlike myself, started with his digital being pretty nondescript -- at one stage I was amazed at how he managed to achieve a digital sound where the sound floor completely disappeared below a certain volume, the music completely disappeared -- but now has progressed to where they are at level pegging.

So, to reiterate, digital sound most often is an all or nothing: it either will sound like crap, pretty useless; or brilliant. There's not too much wriggle room inbetween those two extremes ...

Frank

 

[mep]

Uh, where does the 10% distortion come from Tom? It would have to be the speakers adding the most distortion of course. I have never seen a speaker specification that lists the amount of distortion a given speaker has. So please tell me where your 10% figure came from.