The biggest difference I hear between digital and analog

[RogerD]

The conversation has gone down the one of usual roads of thrashing around about microphones, frequency response, mastering techniques. And how everything is adding something, normally the "wrong" thing to the recording. Virtually nothing about the approach of taking the wrong thing from the playback. Distortion, of course. IMO (okay, Tim, sit down, sit down!!).

The journey with the friend, in hindsight, has been very instructive. Having both LP and CD, and he being prepared to get his hands totally dirty in the guts of these playback devices certainly meant excellent feedback as to relevance of various elements in the quality of playback. The TT, a cheap Projekt, has had its bearing worn out through the various experiments, so he's engineered a new one there, the drive belt and pully arrangement is completely altered, the mounting and suspension of the motor, on and on. Each step has been a movement forward, and the end result has been -- drum roll please!! -- that the CD doesn't sound like CD, and the LP doesn't sound like LP; they each just sound like a mechanism playing back a recording. My feedback to him has been, for example, that his LP version of some CD album I have doesn't sound right, and the end result has been a convergence of the sound characteristics of the two media.

And what is that convergence? It is the sound of the recording, the quality of what it sounded like at the time of mastering the album. The media that the particular recording is on is now pretty irrelevant, this noise floor thing is nowhere in sight.

And as a final note: I was thinking back to some very, very expensive TT setups I listened to while part of that audio club scene and shudder. When they were good, they were very, very good; but when they were bad, ...

Frank

Frank is the illusion more believable between the two? Or are they both equal? regardless of everything else.

 

[mep]

"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." There's a quote from your original post.

And I stand by that quote because if you haven’t heard analog lately on a really good system (and we can all debate what that is), it would do you good to refresh your memory before you jump in and attack my thoughts about how analog sounds vies a vies digital.

I didn't retire my table/arm/cartridge/pre-amp until 2002, because I found that I had hardly listened to it in the previous 2 years. I still have friends who have analog (I just recently listened to Getz/Gilberto from a well-preserved original pressing on a great Pass Labs system), and there was lots of analog in the same rooms as digital at the last RAMF. I still don't miss it, except for the better masterings often present on LP's, and Bruce B's reel tapes (which I can't listen to at home anyway), all of which has nothing to do with the format.

I was at RMAF too, and I didn’t hear any digital that sounded better than analog in the rooms I was in. But again, that’s just my opinion. As for the “better mastering often present on LPs,” is it really independent of the analog format as you say? You can buy the same recordings on digital I presume.

And I have to say that today's gear is not that much better than yesterday's gear. Continuous incremental improvements, yes; night and day, no way. Remember those recordings from 50 + years ago.

I think your last paragraph would be highly debated. I think lots of people who love analog would argue that arms and cartridges are getting better. Others who own magnetic bearing tables might argue as well. Do you really think that recordings from 50 years ago sound the same on a modern table, arm, and cartridge? I don’t. But hey, that’s just my opinion. But, I never said it was "night and day."

 

[rbbert]

I guess my original point was that this is the second thread you've started where you have clearly stated your preference for analog over digital. That's fine, but why do we need two nearly identical threads about it? And why do you persist in trying to convince listeners who are already experienced in listening to all formats that they are wrong to prefer digital? and so what if arms and cartridges are "getting better" (which is certainly a debatable point, at least in degree); I still have the opportunity to listen to expensive current models when I wish to.

As far as identical masterings on LP and digital formats, unfortunately not true. I could have a snit and try to claim that because of people with your opinions and your willingness to voice them loudly and repetitively, record companies often decide that only LP buyers care about good sound, but I don't know if that is true (it could be, though).

 

[fas42]

Frank is the illusion more believable between the two? Or are they both equal? regardless of everything else.

Roger, this was my friend's setup, he still hasn't got to my end game point, of having the speakers become completely "invisible". But on the basis of where he's at right at this moment I don't believe there will be any significant difference between the two media once he achieves that. Certainly now the illusion is on equal pegging; he can have the volume as loud as he likes on a Naim 50 watter, and it's fully convincing from the other end of his house

Because his equipment is intrinsically of much higher quality than what I'm playing with at home at the moment, in some areas he's in front. His speakers are very good, recent Naim efforts, and when the track is a simple acoustic recording the tonal quality of a single note shines through.

Over the many iterations of his setup that I've experienced, first the TT was in front, then CD would pull alongside, and vice versa; he basically worked on the source that was below par at each stage. In the latest round, the TT bass just wasn't tight, lacked the ability to punch you in the chest, so major work on improving damping and coupling of the TT platter parts was done.

The illusion on his system now pretty well has the ability to draw you into the recording no matter what he puts on, his reservoir of "bad" recordings is steadily drying up!!

Frank

 

[jazdoc]

I do think that all equipment has improved. Even older tried and true tube electronics are improved with better parts and layouts. There is a great irony that some of the greatest advancements in analog are occuring as the medium has become marginalized (even with the recent 'vinyl renaissance'). I know that recent advances in tonearm and cartridge design in the past decade have help push the analog envelope. New materials technology and re-designs of older truntable techonologies have pushed the envelope even further.

Rather than endlessly talking past each other, I see an opening here for understanding, education and fun. Perhaps we could organize a WBF get together between digital and analog enthusiasts. Most importantly, it would be fun to meet other enthusiasts face to face. I know that I would appreciate the chance to understand what appeals to other people. Perhaps The Show at Newport or next year's RMAF?? Is there WBF member who would be willing to host such an event?

 

[RogerD]

Roger, this was my friend's setup, he still hasn't got to my end game point, of having the speakers become completely "invisible". But on the basis of where he's at right at this moment I don't believe there will be any significant difference between the two media once he achieves that. Certainly now the illusion is on equal pegging; he can have the volume as loud as he likes on a Naim 50 watter, and it's fully convincing from the other end of his house

Because his equipment is intrinsically of much higher quality than what I'm playing with at home at the moment, in some areas he's in front. His speakers are very good, recent Naim efforts, and when the track is a simple acoustic recording the tonal quality of a single note shines through.

Over the many iterations of his setup that I've experienced, first the TT was in front, then CD would pull alongside, and vice versa; he basically worked on the source that was below par at each stage. In the latest round, the TT bass just wasn't tight, lacked the ability to punch you in the chest, so major work on improving damping and coupling of the TT platter parts was done.

The illusion on his system now pretty well has the ability to draw you into the recording no matter what he puts on, his reservoir of "bad" recordings is steadily drying up!!

Frank

Frank I asked you that because you know what I'm talking about. At this point in my system both tape and digital produce a more than convincing illusion in fact it is pretty incredible. But as I have said it can get better. At this point it is pretty much source media dependent. For me the illusion is everything and I for one embrace all formats,even though my LP12 has sat idle for too long.

 

[Steve Williams]

I do think that all equipment has improved. Even older tried and true tube electronics are improved with better parts and layouts. There is a great irony that some of the greatest advancements in analog are occuring as the medium has become marginalized (even with the recent 'vinyl renaissance'). I know that recent advances in tonearm and cartridge design in the past decade have help push the analog envelope. New materials technology and re-designs of older truntable techonologies have pushed the envelope even further.

Rather than endlessly talking past each other, I see an opening here for understanding, education and fun. Perhaps we could organize a WBF get together between digital and analog enthusiasts. Most importantly, it would be fun to meet other enthusiasts face to face. I know that I would appreciate the chance to understand what appeals to other people. Perhaps The Show at Newport or next year's RMAF?? Is there WBF member who would be willing to host such an event?

We had a dinner Mark at RMAF and it was fun. In fact you were there

 

[mep]

I guess my original point was that this is the second thread you've started where you have clearly stated your preference for analog over digital. That's fine, but why do we need two nearly identical threads about it?

Part 1 was how I ranked my preferences. Part 2 was why I ranked them the way I did. In both threads, I asked people who were able to listen to all three sources if they agreed with my thoughts. Somehow all of that was lost in the noise generated by digital lovers who wanted to attack me vice listening to what I was saying and the questions I was asking which really they weren’t in a position to answer since they only have one source to listen to. My threads were and are two separate thoughts.

And why do you persist in trying to convince listeners who are already experienced in listening to all formats that they are wrong to prefer digital?

I am categorically not trying to convince those who love digital that they are wrong to prefer digital. How many times have I said on this forum that I understand why people who love digital love digital? I get it, trust me.

and so what if arms and cartridges are "getting better" (which is certainly a debatable point, at least in degree); I still have the opportunity to listen to expensive current models when I wish to.

I really don’t know what to say about the above statement except express my confusion. “So what if arms and cartridges are “getting better”?” How do you respond to that statement?

As far as identical masterings on LP and digital formats, unfortunately not true. I could have a snit and try to claim that because of people with your opinions and your willingness to voice them loudly and repetitively, record companies often decide that only LP buyers care about good sound, but I don't know if that is true (it could be, though).

Are you saying that record companies do a better mastering job on LPs than they do on CDs because they know that people who are still invested in LPs aren’t going to stand for heavily compressed recordings? I have talked about that before and have stated I think it is one of the great ironies in audio. The digital format has the greatest potential for dynamic range and yet it is being thrown away by the heavy compression being applied due to the loudness wars. And people with my opinions are responsible for LP lovers being the beneficiary of better mastering?? So do tell, why do record companies take LP people more seriously than digital customers?

 

[fas42]

Frank I asked you that because you know what I'm talking about. At this point in my system both tape and digital produce a more than convincing illusion in fact it is pretty incredible. But as I have said it can get better. At this point it is pretty much source media dependent. For me the illusion is everything and I for one embrace all formats,even though my LP12 has sat idle for too long.

Yep, I know that you know :b. I haven't listened to a "proper" R2R ever, but I don't need to: I just put on a CD of some super lush material from the 50's and I can hear all those lovely, warm, tube enhanced tones gushing forth. Very cuddly, "big" and enveloping -- nice!!

So, in terms of it getting better, the implication of some of what you've been saying is that the digital side should be able to be improved. My trick has always been to put on the worst recording you have, because that normally screams at you, telling you exactly where work needs to be done! So when you do that with a CD, what is it telling you?

Frank

 

[fas42]

A quick comment about Mark's point about higher harmonics: this is where people always tend to point the finger at digital not being "good enough". Sorry, the answer is that your system is not good enough: whenever digital replay is not up to snuff the first thing that suffers is that particular element of the sound. Again, it's like digital TV: if the reception is not quite good enough the picture, and the sound, is a disaster -- not tolerable. With correct digital replay the sound has to snap into place, into focus: when it does that, all talk of something missing, askew, becomes just gibberish ...

Frank

 

[mep]

I do think that all equipment has improved. Even older tried and true tube electronics are improved with better parts and layouts. There is a great irony that some of the greatest advancements in analog are occuring as the medium has become marginalized (even with the recent 'vinyl renaissance'). I know that recent advances in tonearm and cartridge design in the past decade have help push the analog envelope. New materials technology and re-designs of older truntable techonologies have pushed the envelope even further.

Rather than endlessly talking past each other, I see an opening here for understanding, education and fun. Perhaps we could organize a WBF get together between digital and analog enthusiasts. Most importantly, it would be fun to meet other enthusiasts face to face. I know that I would appreciate the chance to understand what appeals to other people. Perhaps The Show at Newport or next year's RMAF?? Is there WBF member who would be willing to host such an event?

Great idea Doc. I wish it could work out. It would probably be analogous to getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to sit down together and discuss peace though.

 

[RogerD]

Yep, I know that you know :b. I haven't listened to a "proper" R2R ever, but I don't need to: I just put on a CD of some super lush material from the 50's and I can hear all those lovely, warm, tube enhanced tones gushing forth. Very cuddly, "big" and enveloping -- nice!!

So, in terms of it getting better, the implication of some of what you've been saying is that the digital side should be able to be improved. My trick has always been to put on the worst recording you have, because that normally screams at you, telling you exactly where work needs to be done! So when you do that with a CD, what is it telling you?

Frank

Now Frank if you ever get a copy Alex North's Long Hot summer soundtrack and have a listen to Jimmie Rodger's rendition of the title track,you get a big dose of what you are talking about. That's because it was recorded in 1958 on a Ampex 300 I believe. Now on my updated tubed Ampex that music especially the intro has gotta give anybody goosebumps. No syrup just big beautiful sound that stirs emotion. Now as far as the CD I no longer have any interest in upgrading my digital and that's because the larger majority sound just fine. Why? Noise and I'm not talking about Jack's friendly type...it's the type I talk about in my signature.

 

[rbbert]

...It would probably be analogous to getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to sit down together and discuss peace though.

I don't know why. I know that at last year's RMAF I just enjoyed listening to systems, without paying a lot of attention to the source (except when a noisy LP was playing; I don't understand at all why an exhibitor would want to do that). Really the only time the source stood out for me as exceptional was in Bruce's room; for some reason in the other rooms playing reels they didn't sound dramatically better to me than other sources.

 

[fas42]

Now Frank if you ever get a copy Alex North's Long Hot summer soundtrack and have a listen to Jimmie Rodger's rendition of the title track,you get a big dose of what you are talking about. That's because it was recorded in 1958 on a Ampex 300 I believe. Now on my updated tubed Ampex that music especially the intro has gotta give anybody goosebumps. No syrup just big beautiful sound that stirs emotion. Now as far as the CD I no longer have any interest in upgrading my digital and that's because the larger majority sound just fine. Why? Noise and I'm not talking about Jack's friendly type...it's the type I talk about in my signature.

Thanks for the tip!

As regards CD, I guess I'm different there. It's not good enough for me that the majority are fine, they all have to be fine: that is, they give of their best. I have heard too many "hideous" recordings suddenly snap into place, so my mantra is that they are all capable of being brought fully to life -- creating a powerful emotional experience. I enjoy the challenge, and reap the benefit of having some album that people consider rubbish give me great musical pleasure ...

Frank

 

[RogerD]

Thanks for the tip!

As regards CD, I guess I'm different there. It's not good enough for me that the majority are fine, they all have to be fine: that is, they give of their best. I have heard too many "hideous" recordings suddenly snap into place, so my mantra is that they are all capable of being brought fully to life -- creating a powerful emotional experience. I enjoy the challenge, and reap the benefit of having some album that people consider rubbish give me great musical pleasure ...

Frank

i'm splitting hairs Frank, there's the "Chinatown" soundtrack with the original version of I can't get started with you", It sounds great on my system.

 

[jazdoc]

We had a dinner Mark at RMAF and it was fun. In fact you were there

I didn't have that much to drink so I remember!

That dinner was a great opportunity to put faces to names and share our common audio passion. But wouldn't it be fun to actually listen and hopefully learn together?

 

[Steve Williams]

I didn't have that much to drink so I remember!

That dinner was a great opportunity to put faces to names and share our common audio passion. But wouldn't it be fun to actually listen and hopefully learn together?

I'm all in.

 

[RBFC]

I prefer a well-recorded, well-mastered......
MHO. YMMV.

Tim

As I've seen it in many forums: /thread

(Bold emphasis in quote above: mine.)

Just to state that I feel that there are bigger problems to be dealt with than the final medium of playback.

Lee

 

[Bruce B]

Are you saying that record companies do a better mastering job on LPs than they do on CDs because they know that people who are still invested in LPs aren’t going to stand for heavily compressed recordings? I have talked about that before and have stated I think it is one of the great ironies in audio. The digital format has the greatest potential for dynamic range and yet it is being thrown away by the heavy compression being applied due to the loudness wars. And people with my opinions are responsible for LP lovers being the beneficiary of better mastering?? So do tell, why do record companies take LP people more seriously than digital customers?

Well actually, LP's are mastered "more carefully". If you connected a lathe directly to the digital output of a DAC, the cutter head would end up in the next room. Cartridges wouldn't be able to stay in the grooves if you mastered an LP like a CD. The RIAA curve helps, but LP's are no where near the dynamic range of digital. So yes, LP's are mastered "differently".

 

[FrantzM]

Well actually, LP's are mastered "more carefully". If you connected a lathe directly to the digital output of a DAC, the cutter head would end up in the next room. Cartridges wouldn't be able to stay in the grooves if you mastered an LP like a CD. The RIAA curve helps, but LP's are no where near the dynamic range of digital. So yes, LP's are mastered "differently".

Emphasis is mine..
This , People is not an opinion: It is a fact. and
This , Bruce, will attract you the ires and wrath of the analog crowd ...

I do agree with the statement however.