DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl

[Rensselaer]

This is the kind of false dichotomy that gets really tiresome.

I'd also opine that if you've never heard emotionally engaging music through digital playback, you are either basing your view on early digital, have not ever heard a decent digital set up, or are so invested in the "digital bad/analog good" world view as to create a perceptual/prejudicial wall that can't be crossed.

Wil, your statement to me “you are either basing your view on early digital, have not ever heard a decent digital set up, or are so invested in the “digital bad/ analogue good” shows me you either did not read my earlier report (Friday) of PET scan findings, or did not understand the significance of such.

In the study I cited, PET scans proved that conservatives and liberals process the same discordant political policy statement, put to them while in the PET scanner, in different parts of their brains. The significance of this finding is that those who prefer pure analogue over digital probably process what they hear differently than those of you who prefer digital. As I said, the comparison of each group listening to each source in a PET scan has yet to be tried so this is theoretical, but could, if done, prove that neither is “good/bad” just perceived differently in different people. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Rensselaer]

If there are any Radiologists out there with access to a PET scanner (note, the digital units are more precise than the analogue units), and would like to try this experiment, it would be most appreciated. You would need analogue and digital playback systems of equal cost/quality in the room, divide subjects into pro-digital or pro-analogue, each goes into the PET scan and then play the same track on either analogue or digital (random choice, not known by subject or radiographer) then see what parts of the brain light up with each.

 

[Gregadd]

I admire your response. It is not the first time I have encountered it. I did a survey of recording studios some time ago and posted the results on this siteThe survey was more cursory than exhaustive. I find it confusing that it is claimed that anything can be accomplished in mastering, except replicate the real thing. No need to beat a dead horse.

 

[Al M.]

Wil, your statement to me “you are either basing your view on early digital, have not ever heard a decent digital set up, or are so invested in the “digital bad/ analogue good” shows me you either did not read my earlier report (Friday) of PET scan findings, or did not understand the significance of such.

In the study I cited, PET scans proved that conservatives and liberals process the same discordant political policy statement, put to them while in the PET scanner, in different parts of their brains. The significance of this finding is that those who prefer pure analogue over digital probably process what they hear differently than those of you who prefer digital. As I said, the comparison of each group listening to each source in a PET scan has yet to be tried so this is theoretical, but could, if done, prove that neither is “good/bad” just perceived differently in different people. Different strokes for different folks.

That would be an interesting experiment.

Have you ever had emotional involvement with music over the car radio? That is mostly, or entirely, from digital source these days.

 

[wil]

If there are any Radiologists out there with access to a PET scanner (note, the digital units are more precise than the analogue units), and would like to try this experiment, it would be most appreciated. You would need analogue and digital playback systems of equal cost/quality in the room, divide subjects into pro-digital or pro-analogue, each goes into the PET scan and then play the same track on either analogue or digital (random choice, not known by subject or radiographer) then see what parts of the brain light up with each.

That sounds like an interesting idea, but an exceeding hard one to pull off with all the variables with playback systems, masterings, etc. This would have even more pitfalls I think than the Liberal/Conservative Petscan experiment which to me sounds pretty shaky.

I challenge the notion that music lovers are wired to like digital OR analog. I like both as long as the source material is good. I do believe that it's human nature (unfortunately) to want to pick sides and consciously, or un-consciously, filter one's information and experiences to continuously support that chosen side. This is evident both in politics and audiophile attitudes.

 

[Rensselaer]

I admire your response. It is not the first time I have encountered it. I did a survey of recording studios some time ago and posted the results on this siteThe survey was more cursory than exhaustive. I find it confusing that it is claimed that anything can be accomplished in mastering, except replicate the real thing. No need to beat a dead horse.

Too true. I am reminded of interconnects designed to balance a system, which are in reality low pass crossover networks (or high-pass). They accentuate by restricting.

 

[Rensselaer]

That would be an interesting experiment.

Have you ever had emotional involvement with music over the car radio? That is mostly, or entirely, from digital source these days.

When I was a kid all AM radio was vinyl records and mono (AM), and yes they sounded great.

 

[Rensselaer]

That sounds like an interesting idea, but an exceeding hard one to pull off with all the variables with playback systems, masterings, etc. This would have even more pitfalls I think than the Liberal/Conservative Petscan experiment which to me sounds pretty shaky.

I challenge the notion that music lovers are wired to like digital OR analog. I like both as long as the source material is good. I do believe that it's human nature (unfortunately) to want to pick sides and consciously, or un-consciously, filter one's information and experiences to continuously support that chosen side. This is evident both in politics and audiophile attitudes.

The answer is to do the experiment, what we think/feel isn’t really relevant.

 

[Al M.]

When I was a kid all AM radio was vinyl records and mono (AM), and yes they sounded great.

So that means car radio leaves you cold these days? Even with favorite tunes?

 

[Gregadd]

Too true. I am reminded of interconnects designed to balance a system, which are in reality low pass crossover networks (or high-pass). They accentuate by restricting.

I am just happy something was happenning
I will let the techies decide what it is.

 

[PeterA]

So that means car radio leaves you cold these days? Even with favorite tunes?

I enjoy hearing all the tunes on the car radio. It’s nostalgic but the sound is crap. Emotional sure. I also enjoy a good burger and it hits all the taste buttons and emotions if it is cooked rare and is juicy, but it’s nothing like a great rare steak.

 

[Gregadd]

Some car radios are steak.

 

[Rensselaer]

So that means car radio leaves you cold these days? Even with favorite tunes?

In the UK my choice when I bought the car in 2011 was just plain radio. DAB came out afterwards, but I do not know if one is able to choose "favourite tunes" on such devices. For the most part I listened to iTunes recorded to an iPod plugged into my sound system in the car, which, though convenient, does not bring the emotion that old AM radio playing analogue used to do for me.

I do have a NAIM Unity Nova unit in my kitchen that I can stream higher definition digital music from. We put it on during evening meals for background music. Music not really emotive through, so for main listening I have an (albeit much more expensive) vinyl playback rig upstairs.

 

[wil]

You might consider that an all in one box (Amp, DAC, Streamer, etc) -- in your kitchen -- compared to a high- end dedicated system with a listening chair -- is hardly a meaningful comparison when judging which system is "emotive " or not. But, no doubt, you're happy with your vinyl system which is wonderful. Why the need to put down digital playback with a meaningless comparison?

 

[Atmasphere]

From a review I did for The Audio Beat on the Lamm M1.2

"If you ask him about assessing sound quality, Vladimir [Lamm] will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

The experience we have listening to music at that "intuitive level" is rooted in primitive limbic functions of awareness -- deep in our lizard brain. McGill University scientists observed that consonance and dissonance will light up the limbic systems responsible for pleasurable and negative emotions appropriately. The non-cognitive experience of music can trigger areas in the brain sufficient to cause the release of endorphins; when they reach the limbic system’s opioid receptors, feelings of satisfaction ensue. In his book What to Listen for in Music, American composer Aaron Copland talks about this in different terms, describing how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a "sensuous plane," which is "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music."

If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex. If my ear/brain system detects distortion, for example an excess of third-order harmonics that cause increased loudness or forwardness from that trumpet section over there in right field, in an instant it can happen: focus is triggered, the eyes open and the non-inferential immediacy of our musical enjoyment collapses."

I've been telling people something like this for years. If the limbic system finds something that 'doesn't compute' the music processing is unconsciouslyT transferred to the cerebral cortex. When that happens the emotional involvement, the foot tapping, the desire to move with the music is all decreased or gone entirely. When you are auditioning cables its with the cerebral cortex, not the limbic system.

Things that help keep the processing in the limbic system:
*The 'speed' of the system- there's a tipping point for that
*if the distortion signature is able to mask higher ordered harmonic content (many tube amps do this, hence the tubes/transistors debate)
*The ear converts distortion into tonality and pays greater attention to it than actual FR. So the distortion has to be kept down to prevent coloration; the brightness of solid state or the crispness of early digital are two good examples of audible colorations.

You can accurately predict that if a system obeys the above 3 points it will sound more emotionally involving than a system that does not. If you are going to design audio equipment for a living with the idea of actually doing the best you can rather than just to make money, you have to apply engineering principles in such a way that the human hearing perceptual rules are supported (this would seem elementary but many designers seem to ignore the ear's perceptual rules). One of the most important of these is how the ear perceives sound pressure, which is thru the perception of higher ordered harmonics. That is why its so important to keep them down (or masked).

 

[Rensselaer]

You might consider that an all in one box (Amp, DAC, Streamer, etc) -- in your kitchen -- compared to a high- end dedicated system with a listening chair -- is hardly a meaningful comparison when judging which system is "emotive " or not. But, no doubt, you're happy with your vinyl system which is wonderful. Why the need to put down digital playback with a meaningless comparison?

Did I put down digital playback with a meaningless comparison? Sorry, I enjoy listening to streamed digital music during my meal times, I enjoy listening to analogue and valves when I want to emotionally immerse myself into the music. Different activities require different setups, but I wasn’t putting down digital.

For me, I go to analogue and class A single ended triodes for emotion, others go to digital and transistors. As I said in an earlier posting I believe we are made differently and perceive differently so what you hear from digital and transistors may be entirely different from what I would hear from the same exact system. I am holding out for the PET scan study to verify or refute my opinion, but in the mean time…

 

[wil]

Did I put down digital playback with a meaningless comparison?

In a word: Yes! Like I already said, comparing an all in one box like the Niam in the kitchen to a higher end system in a dedicated room for listening is a pretty meaningless comparison.

Try one of those integrated turntable/amps in the kitchen and see how you like it!

I'd love to see a well set up PET test, but I seriously doubt it would show there are differences.

 

[Rensselaer]

In a word: Yes! Like I already said, comparing an all in one box like the Niam in the kitchen to a higher end system in a dedicated room for listening is a pretty meaningless comparison.

Try one of those integrated turntable/amps in the kitchen and see how you like it!

I'd love to see a well set up PET test, but I seriously doubt it would show there are differences.

Wil,
You presume, and suggest herein to the other readers, that I blindly went out and spent £60,000 on an analogue rig and £4000 on a digital rig only so that I could then compare them unfairly and then write up my findings on this forum? Really? Could it be that I might have already formed my opinion from years and years of involvement in this hobby then invested to get what I deemed the best I could afford for the two distinctly different roles respectively?

 

[wil]

Wil,
You presume, and suggest herein to the other readers, that I blindly went out and spent £60,000 on an analogue rig and £4000 on a digital rig only so that I could then compare them unfairly and then write up my findings on this forum? Really?

I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. I'm simply challenging the overall theme of what you've been writing here: that is, (1) that music from digital audio is not emotionally involving but that vinyl is, when you show no evidence of having any experience of listening to an equivalent quality digital system. (Case in point your kitchen digital compared to your very high end analog rig).

and (2) your apparent belief that there is a some kind of dichotomy in the brains distinguishing people who enjoy digital playback to the brains of people who enjoy analog playback and that it would be worthwhile to un-cover these differences with PET scans.

I'll move on.

 

[Rensselaer]

I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. I'm simply challenging the overall theme of what you've been writing here: that is, (1) that music from digital audio is not emotionally involving but that vinyl is, when you show no evidence of having any experience of listening to an equivalent quality digital system. (Case in point your kitchen digital compared to your very high end analog rig).

and (2) your apparent belief that there is a some kind of dichotomy in the brains distinguishing people who enjoy digital playback to the brains of people who enjoy analog playback and that it would be worthwhile to un-cover these differences with PET scans.

I'll move on.

Which is it? Am I saying that my preference for vinyl over digital may be due to my genetic makeup, that different genetic makeups may be what determines which (analogue or digital) playback system any individual prefers, and that I hope a radiologist with access to a PET scan and volunteers from this website does the experiment to find out? Or am I saying that in all cases digital audio is not emotionally involving but that vinyl is? Try not to push your agenda in your answer.