WBF Poll: Which Sounds Better, Digital or Analog?

[microstrip]

If a dac sounds 'different' through its various inputs, then IMHO it is heroically badly designed and not for for purpose.
Cd has extremely robust error correction , many audiophiles imagine differences, which disappear under unsighted and level matched comparisons.
Keith.

We all know all that since long. IMHO this kind of attitude could explain why in this poll more people prefer the analog.
BTW, it is not nice for me to learn that the Devialet 400 (that I own since a couple of months and I consider SOTA digital) should be considered " heroically badly designed and not for for purpose." But we should move this Devialet debate to another thread in due time. I am still experimenting.

 

[FrantzM]

If a dac sounds 'different' through its various inputs, then IMHO it is heroically badly designed and not for for purpose.
Cd has extremely robust error correction , many audiophiles imagine differences, which disappear under unsighted and level matched comparisons.
Keith.

This is a real problem. Many audiophiles actively refute the fact their perception can be fooled, even after they have been fooled! Hubris? Insecurity? WIth such a pervasive behavior,we are all over the board. Defending our ears as being perfect and absolute judges...

 

[FrantzM]

We all know all that since long. IMHO this kind of attitude could explain why in this poll more people prefer the analog.
BTW, it is not nice for me to learn that the Devialet 400 (that I own since a couple of months and I consider SOTA digital) should be considered " heroically badly designed and not for for purpose." But we should move this Devialet debate to another thread in due time. I am still experimenting.

Curious as I am making the move toward Devialet as well...Does it drive your Soundlab well? I suggest you open a thread on the Devialet. I would think many are most interested.

 

[garylkoh]

Yes in general the ripped files sound better than the CD but I've heard some variation here too.

Agreed. I should have been more clear. This is when the files have been sent to the pressing plants by Winston and we got test pressings back to listen to.

 

[sbo6]

Yes in general the ripped files sound better than the CD but I've heard some variation here too.

Gary and Myles, can I ask why you believe this is so? Would this not argue against technologies like blu spec and SHM? Does a ripped redbook non- Blu spec/SHM CD sound better than it's Blu spec/SHM CD equivalent (assuming same mastering, etc)?

 

[garylkoh]

Gary and Myles, can I ask why you believe this is so? Would this not argue against technologies like blu spec and SHM? Does a ripped redbook non- Blu spec/SHM CD sound better than it's Blu spec/SHM CD equivalent (assuming same mastering, etc)?

The CD encoding technology is a transition technology. If you look at post #362, transition between pit to/from land defines a 1. Using EFM (eight to fourteen modulation) the 8-bit words of PCM are translated to EFM using a precise look-up table so that there are no consecutive 1's. If a pit or land is too long or short, then the code returned is wrong. Some of this can be corrected with Reed Solomon code (but this is HARD). Even with error-recovery technology, you can still return a "correct" result. But the "correct" result can be different from what was intended. That is why the same technology used for Music CDs is not used for data storage. (This is the basis behind EAC and dbPowerAmp by the way - checking against the CRC (cyclic redundancy check) allows the software to determine if the recovered track is the same as other tracks recovered by other people who ripped the CD.)

Error can come about because the physical implementation of the CD is imperfect. When looked at in the data form, the transition between pit and land is very clear. Unfortunately, in the physical media, it may not be clear because the edges of the pits and lands are fuzzy. In a burned CDR, scarring of the edges can occur. In pressed CDs, the edges are not precisely sharp. Depending on the reader, the pits and lands could be read longer or shorter than they are supposed to be.

Moreover, while an off-center LP is easily detected because we can see the tonearm swaying, we cannot see the servo of the laser head frantically trying to keep the spiral of pits and lands on the CD in focus. This results in electrical activity from driving the servo-motor interfering with the DAC, and the laser reading interfering with the accuracy. This is one big unseen problem of CDs that cannot be addressed with damping rings (which may address up/down vibration of the physical disc), green pens, etc. None of this can be fixed in real-time, which is why high-end CD-transports have increasingly been buffering readers. But because they are not connect to the Internet, cannot check the CRC and then go back and re-read the track.

The technology covered in the Black CD White Paper tries to overcome some of this, firstly with better CDR blanks, lowering the vibration to the CD burner, and finally with the Yamaha-patented Audio Master Mode which sacrifices some recording-time for better land/pit transitions. The improvement we heard when we found a CD-pressing plant willing precisely center the CD blank was probably one of the biggest advantages First Impression Music had making better sounding CDs.

 

[TBone]

The robustness of CD's error correction used to be demonstrated by drilling a hole through the CD,
Keith.

Amazing, considering some CDs refuse play on any transport (which I've tried) yet they looked "perfect".

 

[garylkoh]

The robustness of CD's error correction used to be demonstrated by drilling a hole through the CD,
Keith.

Did it return the same data?

 

[TBone]

Did it return the same data?

Would the size of the drill matter?

 

[microstrip]

Curious as I am making the move toward Devialet as well...Does it drive your Soundlab well? I suggest you open a thread on the Devialet. I would think many are most interested.

Frantz,

The 400 drives the Soundlab's perfectly - some of my friends state it was on par with the best sound I could get from them in my room. Unfortunately I would need a lot of those suspicious subjective words that make a small part of WBF readers nervous to describe it.

The funny part with the Devialet is that it is so transparent to the recording that everything - source, digital cable, speaker cables, power cables and conditioners make an appreciable difference - enough to make it sounding great or lifeless, involving or sterile. As my 400 is made using two 200's I could easily compare two systems side by side with different components. All my listening was informal, but when my invited guinea pigs who did not know what they were listening expressed opinions about sound quality that were in line with mine I became confident. Most of my listening of the three last weeks has been carried with the B&W SS25 Silver Signature mini monitor speakers.

But why a thread on the Devialet? Just to read the same usual posters stating that probably it is my imagination?
Perhaps after you own one we can create a fan club to support it. I am sure you are going to love it - it is very sensitive to power systems.

Back to analog versus digital - I still did not try feeding the Devialets with analog signals coming from vinyl.

 

[microstrip]

Amazing, considering some CDs refuse play on any transport (which I've tried) yet they looked "perfect".

The Pierre Verany test CD has examples and test for many types of CD defects and a very good description of them in the manual. Gaps (the holes) was just a minor one, but a great marketing tool!

I will look for it later and post something on the subject later.

 

[TBone]

The Pierre Verany test CD has examples and test for many types of CD defects and a very good description of them in the manual. Gaps (the holes) was just a minor one, but a great marketing tool!

I will look for it later and post something on the subject later.

Interesting ... should one be concerned, when playing such a disk, with loud spur type noise. I've heard some players "pop" while attempting to play damaged disks.

 

[garylkoh]

And Bob Ludwig disagrees and stated (and complained) in my interview with him 15 years ago that the quality of the CD-rs he was sending to the pressing plant were going to hell. And he specifically complained about the huge amount of errors from the crappy manufacturing quality and it's affecting the SQ.

+1

 

[NorthStar]

So we should purchase our analog and digital music recordings only from the best sources; manufacturing plants and hi-res music downloads from reputable Internet companies. ...The solid/quality music studio recordings, with the best music recording engineers using the best mics.

That is the dilemma; how do we know that our LPs and CDs are well recorded and transferred and manufactured with the best quality care?
The majority of the music listeners don't have that knowledge; only very few.

* I love Patricia Barber, Holly Cole, Cassandra Wilson, Diana Krall, Mary Gauthier, Lucinda Williams, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, ...etc.,
but not all recordings are quality recordings capturing the essence. ...And it don't matter to me if it's from an album (LP) or a CD, as long as it sounds good.

Some record labels I can trust; Reference Recordings, ECM, Channel Classics, APO, AudioQuest Music, Nonesuch, Concord Jazz, etc., and they happen to suit my music taste, with artists who appealed to me, to my soul.

________

* Previously it was 60/40 in favor of analog sounding best for WBF members who participated in that poll; now it is 65/35 with just over 100 members who voted.
Analog music listening is alive and strong around here. How the younger generation of audiophiles can access the music they love and from well recorded albums (LPs)?
- Tapes are not easily accessible, and are expensive, for quality ones.

Some members here have some of the best music recordings on tapes and on vinyl. ...Some of them are unobtainable. ...Can they make some good copies, digitally, and share them with some of us who don't have access to them?

If I could go back in time I would rebuild my music collection from the best mastered LPs from yesteryears. ...But yesterday we didn't have artists like Mary Gauthier and all the new comers from year 2000 to 2015. ...And where do we find them?

 

[PeterA]

The CD encoding technology is a transition technology. If you look at post #362, transition between pit to/from land defines a 1. Using EFM (eight to fourteen modulation) the 8-bit words of PCM are translated to EFM using a precise look-up table so that there are no consecutive 1's. If a pit or land is too long or short, then the code returned is wrong. Some of this can be corrected with Reed Solomon code (but this is HARD). Even with error-recovery technology, you can still return a "correct" result. But the "correct" result can be different from what was intended. That is why the same technology used for Music CDs is not used for data storage. (This is the basis behind EAC and dbPowerAmp by the way - checking against the CRC (cyclic redundancy check) allows the software to determine if the recovered track is the same as other tracks recovered by other people who ripped the CD.)

Error can come about because the physical implementation of the CD is imperfect. When looked at in the data form, the transition between pit and land is very clear. Unfortunately, in the physical media, it may not be clear because the edges of the pits and lands are fuzzy. In a burned CDR, scarring of the edges can occur. In pressed CDs, the edges are not precisely sharp. Depending on the reader, the pits and lands could be read longer or shorter than they are supposed to be.

Moreover, while an off-center LP is easily detected because we can see the tonearm swaying, we cannot see the servo of the laser head frantically trying to keep the spiral of pits and lands on the CD in focus. This results in electrical activity from driving the servo-motor interfering with the DAC, and the laser reading interfering with the accuracy. This is one big unseen problem of CDs that cannot be addressed with damping rings (which may address up/down vibration of the physical disc), green pens, etc. None of this can be fixed in real-time, which is why high-end CD-transports have increasingly been buffering readers. But because they are not connect to the Internet, cannot check the CRC and then go back and re-read the track.

The technology covered in the Black CD White Paper tries to overcome some of this, firstly with better CDR blanks, lowering the vibration to the CD burner, and finally with the Yamaha-patented Audio Master Mode which sacrifices some recording-time for better land/pit transitions. The improvement we heard when we found a CD-pressing plant willing precisely center the CD blank was probably one of the biggest advantages First Impression Music had making better sounding CDs.

Thanks Gary. I am enjoying reading about what is happening physically at the pit/land scale. Someone once told me to imagine a guy in a football stadium. On the tip of his finger is a grain of rice. He said that the grain of rice and the stadium roughly represent the scale of a pit and a CD disk. Now imagine the guy jumping up and down. A laser has to locate and hit that grain of rice to read the data. I can't remember which, but he also told me that either the disk or the laser is moving at a continuously increasing or decreasing rate as the CD is being read, making the accurate reading of the data that much more of a challenge.

Is this analogy at all correct? And if so, it actually reminds me of the physical and mechanical challenges of analog playback with the importance of correctly tracing the groove with proper tonearm adjustments and cartridge alignment, the scale of the tiniest vinyl modulations and also the speed control and vibration issues.

I realize that computer digital, with files and servers, has a different set of issues than traditional transports and CDs. And then there are the DACs and connection choices. Anyway, I used to believe that vinyl faces much more formidable challenges because of the imperfect mechanical nature of the medium, but I am beginning to better appreciate what is involved with digital playback, both with the physical CD and electronic files.

Consider me both a neophyte and a luddite, but one who is willing to progress.

 

[JonFo]

I just voted for Digital. I banned analog from my system years ago for sonic and practical reasons. And every time I go to see a friend who has a lovely analog system (Wilsons/Classe/Some uber expensive multi-part TT), I marvel at how good vinyl can be made to sound today, but then we play a DVD-A or SACD and I'm positive about digital being better.

Also, the difference between CD-quality and good 24/96 or better high-rez digital source is significant on my system. So much so, I hardly listen to any of my extensive catalog of rips or discs that are less than high-rez.

 

[rockitman]

Looks like a resounding defeat for digital. This poll is a landslide in political context.

 

[ack]

I can't remember which, but he also told me that either the disk or the laser is moving at a continuously increasing or decreasing rate as the CD is being read, making the accurate reading of the data that much more of a challenge.

The CD platter rotates at different angular velocity (500 rpm near the center, 200 at the circumference), for constant linear velocity. All this stuff was published by Stereophile or TAS in the mid-90s, if I remember correctly - they had great illustrations and thorough descriptions.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Looks like a resounding defeat for digital. This poll is a landslide in political context.

 

[sbo6]

The CD encoding technology is a transition technology. If you look at post #362, transition between pit to/from land defines a 1. Using EFM (eight to fourteen modulation) the 8-bit words of PCM are translated to EFM using a precise look-up table so that there are no consecutive 1's. If a pit or land is too long or short, then the code returned is wrong. Some of this can be corrected with Reed Solomon code (but this is HARD). Even with error-recovery technology, you can still return a "correct" result. But the "correct" result can be different from what was intended. That is why the same technology used for Music CDs is not used for data storage. (This is the basis behind EAC and dbPowerAmp by the way - checking against the CRC (cyclic redundancy check) allows the software to determine if the recovered track is the same as other tracks recovered by other people who ripped the CD.)

Error can come about because the physical implementation of the CD is imperfect. When looked at in the data form, the transition between pit and land is very clear. Unfortunately, in the physical media, it may not be clear because the edges of the pits and lands are fuzzy. In a burned CDR, scarring of the edges can occur. In pressed CDs, the edges are not precisely sharp. Depending on the reader, the pits and lands could be read longer or shorter than they are supposed to be.

Moreover, while an off-center LP is easily detected because we can see the tonearm swaying, we cannot see the servo of the laser head frantically trying to keep the spiral of pits and lands on the CD in focus. This results in electrical activity from driving the servo-motor interfering with the DAC, and the laser reading interfering with the accuracy. This is one big unseen problem of CDs that cannot be addressed with damping rings (which may address up/down vibration of the physical disc), green pens, etc. None of this can be fixed in real-time, which is why high-end CD-transports have increasingly been buffering readers. But because they are not connect to the Internet, cannot check the CRC and then go back and re-read the track.

The technology covered in the Black CD White Paper tries to overcome some of this, firstly with better CDR blanks, lowering the vibration to the CD burner, and finally with the Yamaha-patented Audio Master Mode which sacrifices some recording-time for better land/pit transitions. The improvement we heard when we found a CD-pressing plant willing precisely center the CD blank was probably one of the biggest advantages First Impression Music had making better sounding CDs.

Thanks for the detailed explanation Gary, great info. IMO the SHM CDs (assuming a very good master) sound more dynamic and detailed than many (most?) CDs. As I'm sure you are aware they use higher quality polycarbonate material used for LCD panels.