What does it mean when people describe Digital as Sounding like "Analog"? Best term?

[bonzo75]

Kal, is anyone here suggesting or arguing that analog or digital from a recording, can be used as a reference? You quote Al, and his reference is clearly live unamplified music. I don't think anyone considers digital to be his reference either, but I may be wrong.

I think people do refer to specific systems as a reference for memorable reproduced music, the way Kedar refers to MikeL's system, or to the way "Lampis" "sound", but does anyone here not know what live instruments sound like and not think of that sound when assessing the sound of a component, or system or, format?

Of course, when we mention favorite systems or component they are all wrt which get us closest to live

 

[PeterA]

Of course, when we mention favorite systems or component they are all wrt which get us closest to live

So the reference is live, not analog or digital. I thought Kal was suggesting that people used the "analog" sound as a reference. That has no meaning to me, so I asked for clarification.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Regarding tonal balance

Of course and that is why analog, per se, cannot be a reference even if it is your preference.

Turntables is where a lot can go wrong indeed
Tape machines can be flat here is graph of my renovated m15 a .
+- 0.2 db to 20 khz
they do roll a bit of in bass usually or they have a slight bass bump
This one - 2 db at 30 hz which is quite okay .
Most speakers dont do 30 hz at a reasonable spl anyway thats for sure

The hemiolia tape which is on my machine is also recorded with a completely renovated telefunken M 15 a by hemiolia records .

Plus my speakers measure flat .

And holland is flat
Plus the economy is flat

 

[bonzo75]

So the reference is live, not analog or digital. I thought Kal was suggesting that people used the "analog" sound as a reference. That has no meaning to me, so I asked for clarification.

If we don't say live, but use something else as reference, it follows that we are using that component as the closest benchmark to describe live sound.

It has been discussed before that when we say analog in superior terms to digital, it has aspects of live that are superior to digital. You could say this by comparing analog and digital both to live, or easier if you compared one to the other. Sometimes these threads go on like there is no prior context, and no discussion has taken place, and like every word for word in a post is taken in isolation.

 

[RogerD]

Is the real test the percentage amount of time those with analog and digital in their systems use one versus the other?
70 percent seems like a good amount spent listening to digital. I think I’m even higher than that. I won’t mention the digitals ease of use because if digital wasn’t even close to Tape I wouldn’t bother.
I couldn’t say the quality of digital was even close 5 years ago,but given the leap in digital processor performance and my system together. Why be bashful about digital SQ.

 

[Al M.]

Good question and I liked so many of the answers better than what I was going to write that I'm electing to flip the question 180 degrees.

My analog now sounds more like digital than ever before, in that it is now nearer to " pitch perfect" and sounds better than ever.

The change from a saggy old belt on one table, and a slightly running fast Direct Drive to a DD linear tonearm 3rd table means there is more of a difference between the three tables than the top table and my pretty good CD player.

I think my head bobs more and my toes tap more with the analog rigs despite their imperfections, but Im striving for digital perfection in a manner.

Regarding the last paragraph, I know what you mean. Digital has often been challenged in the rhythm department. Early digital was especially bad. In the high end store in the Netherlands, where I was a customer in the early Nineties, they told me that their Linn LP 12 customers often bought a Marantz CD 80 player despite its harsh highs. The reason being that it was the one player that did not lag that far behind their turntables in rhythm, all other CD players were comparatively hopeless in their rhythmic performance.

But digital has made lots of progress, and I am happy to experience that my Schiit Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC, driven by a Simaudio Moon CD transport, is one of the best rhythmic performers that I have heard, analog or digital.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I have spent quit a bit of $$ lately on master tape copies from all kinds of recording companies .
My machines are up to date finally so i have started to draw some more conclusions for myself regarding tape and digital .
Digital isnt to bad afterall , ....sometimes .
But actual listening to it ,...no not much .
I think i need to buy an old school mark levinson dac to listen more to digital or a zanden dac and use the meittner more often as a transport

 

[Al M.]

Both very good points, the latter I had already considered and realized I can't discount the impacts of different mastering.

Regarding the first point, the treble is no more prominent in my digital and is in fact even more detailed, textured, smooth, and saturated (in a good way) in my vinyl. I do think it's the Auralic DAC and I'm ok with that as I don't feel motivated (at least at this point) to ramp up the performance there. My Luxman EQ-500 tube phono stage likely has a large impact on the treble goodness in my vinyl that the Auralic just can't compete with. While my room is fairly well treated, including quite a bit of diffusion, my ceiling is untreated except for applying one of my HFTs there as part of a 15-HFT application. I have traditional corner bass traps, diffusion/absorption panels throughout the room - including at first reflections. I have been pondering better ceiling diffusion - it would be interesting to see if that removed some of the digital treble edge.

Yes, good tube components can be very beneficial for treble quality, even though you can get that from the best SS components as well. The treble quality in my system has made great leaps forward with the introduction of an Octave HP 700 preamp into my system.

Great to hear you have good room treatments. It will depend on the acoustic behavior of the ceiling just how much treatment matters; mine behaves particularly nasty with the metallic 'zing' echo upon hand clapping. I have done the same hand clapping test close to other ceilings, and the response was completely benign. You can read about what I did and how it sounds on this page:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/my-monitor-subwoofer-system.25101/page-9

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, is anyone here suggesting or arguing that analog or digital from a recording, can be used as a reference? You quote Al, and his reference is clearly live unamplified music. I don't think anyone considers digital to be his reference either, but I may be wrong.

That is not the overall impression one gets here nor is it what is implied in the premise of the thread title.

 

[Joe Whip]

I understand that people may use live unamplified music as a reference. The issue I have with that is how poor our aural memories are. On top of that, our state of mind at any given time effects how we perceive sound. When I am very aggitated, while driving and dealing with idiotic drivers or terrible traffic, I often turn the radio off as the music just adds to the irritation, even music I love. If I am going to demo equipment, I prefer to bring pieces of music with me that I have heard hundreds of times. Even then, I prefer doing that in my room with my system. As for digital vs. analog room voicing, my room was set up using digital. I find that when doing that, the analog sounds excellent too. I have not always found the opposite to be true.

 

[microstrip]

try this;

choose a source recording analog or digital. anything decent will do. the more large scale with lots of detail the better.

make an analog recording of it with 1/2" 15ips tape. make another analog recording of that recording with 1/2" 15ips tape. do that again with dub #2. do that again with dub #3.

make an digital recording of it with dxd. playing the dxd in analog make a second dxd recording. then a third analog recording using that 2nd dxd recording. then do a 4th using the 3rd.

now see how the original compares to both 4th gen versions; in other words what is lost or added. which format has real actual information retention and not some theoretical idea.

i know how this goes with tape. do it a lot.

Mike,

What is the purpose of your suggested test? I do not have the tools to do it and find it meaningless and absurd. Independently of the results, IMHO it will not prove anything.

Copying the DXD recording is just copying the bits - it is a bit exact operation. The best point of current top digital is that you only encode once the analog signal - since that moment people work in the digital domain, unless they want to introduce analogue flavors.

Anyway comparing digital with analog recording must include the best and more significant of each format, I will ask an easier question. Please tell me of an analog recording with the richness, complexity and realism of the Jordi Savall "Les routes de l'Esclavage". And , BTW, a Shostakovitch 5th LP that does not distort or compress in the end of the Symphony.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

What is the purpose of your suggested test? I do not have the tools to do it and find it meaningless and absurd. Independently of the results, IMHO it will not prove anything.

Copying the DXD recording is just copying the bits - it is a bit exact operation. The best point of current top digital is that you only encode once the analog signal - since that moment people work in the digital domain, unless they want to introduce analogue flavors.

Anyway comparing digital with analog recording must include the best and more significant of each format, I will ask an easier question. Please tell me of an analog recording with the richness, complexity and realism of the Jordi Savall "Les routes de l'Esclavage". And , BTW, a Shostakovitch 5th LP that does not distort or compress in the end of the Symphony.

it's the digital dxd capturing the analog output that we are talking about here, not a bit for bit copy. both the tape and dxd would see the same first pass. the second pass and so on would be the analog of the tape or dxd. how much is lost as we go along?

i will leave you to ponder this further. i realize it's a hard thing to do properly and would require the right gear. doubtful it could ever happen.

but i have to disagree that it is absurd. it takes the theoretical viewpoint on digital data and holds it accountable. no place to hide. either it can replicate the analog recording better than 1/2" tape, or it cannot. and it cannot, sorry to say.

i still recall the pro audio guys being besides themselves back in 2008 at the recording in my room;

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-direct-to-disc-thread.19906/page-11#post-530338

they could not understand why their ADC's could not capture everything from my Turntable. we would listen to the turntable play the cut, then listen to the digital track. it was not close. and that is how this same process would go too if it ever happened. 1/2" tape gets much closer to the same thing. and x4 generations, even more obvious what would happen.

when you post that dxd has more information than analog; that is what is absurd. and to be clear, i love my digital and dxd is awesome sounding. but it's not analog.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Anyway comparing digital with analog recording must include the best and more significant of each format, I will ask an easier question. Please tell me of an analog recording with the richness, complexity and realism of the Jordi Savall "Les routes de l'Esclavage". And , BTW, a Shostakovitch 5th LP that does not distort or compress in the end of the Symphony.

if we really go down this road trying to compare the best of digital to the best of analog recordings i think it would not end well for digital. mostly because the majority of the best performances and recording efforts are analog sourced.

personally i enjoy the 'Jordi Savale' recording too; but it would be so subjective to go down the 'one-up'ing each other road.

my post was a reaction to your claim of more information from digital. so the answer should be related to levels of information captured. not favorite recording.

 

[microstrip]

if we really go down this road trying to compare the best of digital to the best of analog recordings i think it would not end well for digital. mostly because the majority of the best performances and recording efforts are analog sourced.

personally i enjoy the 'Jordi Savale' recording too; but it would be so subjective to go down the 'one-up'ing each other road.

my post was a reaction to your claim of more information from digital. so the answer should be related to levels of information captured. not favorite recording.

My opinion is that we will find that the capabilities of both systems (analog and digital) are different and we will not have winners or losers. I did not want to debate subjective aspects of the recordings, just the technical. I see you do not like this road, but unless we nominate recordings there is nothing to support our views.

IMHO this recording shows that digital can take levels of information analog can't. It is why I referred to it. I regret that people are obsessed by what is "better" , "majority" or "I think it would not end well".

Again IMHO even some famous analog recordings, such as the Paniagua - La Folia, that sound great and more pleasant in LP, can have higher levels of information when listened in top digital media.

 

[microstrip]

it's the digital dxd capturing the analog output that we are talking about here, not a bit for bit copy. both the tape and dxd would see the same first pass. the second pass and so on would be the analog of the tape or dxd. how much is lost as we go along?

i will leave you to ponder this further. i realize it's a hard thing to do properly and would require the right gear. doubtful it could ever happen.

but i have to disagree that it is absurd. it takes the theoretical viewpoint on digital data and holds it accountable. no place to hide. either it can replicate the analog recording better than 1/2" tape, or it cannot. and it cannot, sorry to say.

i still recall the pro audio guys being besides themselves back in 2008 at the recording in my room;

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-direct-to-disc-thread.19906/page-11#post-530338

they could not understand why their ADC's could not capture everything from my Turntable. we would listen to the turntable play the cut, then listen to the digital track. it was not close. and that is how this same process would go too if it ever happened. 1/2" tape gets much closer to the same thing. and x4 generations, even more obvious what would happen.

when you post that dxd has more information than analog; that is what is absurd. and to be clear, i love my digital and dxd is awesome sounding. but it's not analog.

You are just addressing putting a digital a link of a particular implementation with one particular recording in your system in 2008 - nice to read, but it does not prove anything. I am not claiming that digital is completely transparent, and we perfectly know how hyperbolic can be small differences in our systems. It is not a simple hobby.

 

[Al M.]

Mike,

What is the purpose of your suggested test? I do not have the tools to do it and find it meaningless and absurd. Independently of the results, IMHO it will not prove anything.

Copying the DXD recording is just copying the bits - it is a bit exact operation. The best point of current top digital is that you only encode once the analog signal - since that moment people work in the digital domain, unless they want to introduce analogue flavors.

Indeed, Mike's "test" makes no sense. The point of manipulation in the digital domain is not A-D-A-D-A-D-A and so on, but A-D-D-D-A or such, where D to D are mastering, mixing steps in the digital domain. Copying D to D is lossless, copying A to A is not. As you point out, the beauty with digital is that you only encode once the analog signal, and then work in the digital domain.

A few more things:

1. You cannot assess losses through an ADC without replay through a DAC. So when Mike says that the pro audio guys could not understand that the ADC could not capture everything from the turntable, how would they assess that without a DAC, and thus how would they know exactly which losses occurred if the DAC back then was not equivalent to the cream of today's crop?

2. When it comes to recording not from an analog source, but from a live event, obviously great losses at recording are through the microphones themselves, and probably to a lesser extent, the microphone preamp. If the ADC adds losses to that, how much would these be relative to the microphone stage? How would you even assess that? If you convert analog tape to digital, how do the losses ADC to DAC compare to losses from vinyl cutting to vinyl replay?

3. While copying from analog tape to analog tape might not be subjected to large losses, how do we know that the first analog tape captures all the resolution there is in the first place, compared to a one time ADC process and recording digitally? Perhaps the initial resolution of analog tape is lower to begin with (technically the dynamic range and resolution is certainly not more than 13 bits -- considerably lower than even CD's bit depth of 16 --, as can be read over and over in statements from numerous engineers). You once posted a link to an article where the recording engineer said he can capture more information through digital recording than through analog recording (perhaps you could re-post the link).

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, how would you know anything about stellar digital? You visit guys w SOTA rigs like Audioquattr's Pacific/Extreme and Mike's MSB/Extreme...and proceed not to listen to them, either at all, or to any extent to form an opinion.

Marc, why are you starting an argument?

1) Where in Post #21 do I say anything about "stellar digital" or "SOTA rigs"?

2) How does your post respond to my positive comments about the very significant improvement of digital over time?

 

[tima]

.... And as concerts would start, a little part of my brain would relax into gauging whether the sound felt more digital or analog. ...

And so my conclusion is that despite all it's flaws, the gestalt of analog is still closest to live. With the caveat that my cdp gets close Lol.

All unamplified live music is analog.

gestalt
noun - a configuration, pattern, or organized field having specific properties that cannot be derived from the summation of its component parts; a unified whole.

Can we say the "gestalt of analog" is redundant?

 

[tima]

I understand that people may use live unamplified music as a reference. The issue I have with that is how poor our aural memories are.

No intent to be snarky: Can you tell the difference between live unamplified music and a recording? I don't know if that is a function of aural memory but I'll guess most people can.

 

[microstrip]

No intent to be snarky: Can you tell the difference between live unamplified music and a recording? I don't know if that is a function of aural memory but I'll guess most people can.

Here we go on Coke versus Pepsi again ... It is known since long ago that the answer depends on the conditions and methods of the test.