Analog Apologist

[FrantzM]

Hi

I know there is a strong tendency to reject Science in many of these discussions. It is as if Music reproduction resides on a different planet , thus cannot be bothered, let alone be explainable by mere science ... until Science supports an analog-friendly point of view then it is touted as proof.. case in point, the current discussion... I am willing to even accept his discoveries ... it is suggested as the reason why Vinyl is superior to Digital , when Vinyl has the RIAA curve working against it to reach much over 20 KHz ...
If analog current technologies are all superior to any digital, there must be some explanations, some scientific reasons... I am certain the Studer 820 was scientifically designed and with a vengeance, with very clear goals of low distortion, speed stability, Extended Frequency Response, etc.. all goals that present digital surpass so what is the argument ? That is to me the disconnect. I have no qualms accepting that indeed it could be that analog is superior but so far it has not been proven , not in listening tests where the best of digital is so transparent as to food people that are die-hard analog fans once the knowledge removed .. and to me that is the real point many if not most analog fans refuse to accept the fact that this knowledge is what determine many of these preferences.. You remove it .... preferences change ... I have first-hand experience ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I find myself in complete agreement with Mike on this. For those that love the sound of digital silence, I don't know how you could say that a 7 1/2 ips tape would cream vinyl. Non dolby 7 1/2 ips tapes are noisey. They can sound extremely good however. BUT, they are not going to "cream" vinyl if you listen seriously. You have to step up to 15 ips 2 track tapes in order to beat vinyl and even then it will not be 100% I can't keep up with what gear P has or had. He mentioned something the other day that the last table he had was a Thorens, but he didn't mention what model or what cartridge and preamp he used with it.

They were noisy. The low noise floor is not the only thing I prefer about digital. It isn't even the thing I like best about digital. Lower linear distortion, better dynamic range, flatter frequency response, better channel separation, clarity, control, consistency, endurance...there are a lot of virtues, and lots of flaws in vinyl, and many of those flaws were missing in 7.5 tape as well. Or at least that's how I remember it. It has been more than 15 years. And it could be that my vinyl rig wasn't set up as well as my tape deck. I certainly didn't pay as much attention to it. I used that deck not only to play pre-recorded tapes but to record myself, my bands and my friends. It got a lot of maintenance. But as memory served, I like the 7.5 ips tapes better than vinyl. Maybe it is photogenic memory. Maybe I remember that deck as being more attractive than it actually was.

I don't remember the model number of the Thorens. The last cartridge in it was a Grado. The phono preamp was in a Carver pre amp.

P

 

[Mike Lavigne]

And that would be relevant if the sampling errors were significant, or even audible, during those very quiet passages, but they're not. I do a lot of my listening on very good headphone systems. I've read about this distortion for years, and I've listened for it. Intently. Even at volumes that wouldn't be recommended for extended listening, even on very long fade-outs, I've never heard sampling errors. The loudness level always dropped to black first. Even on digital, the noise floor is higher. Moot point.

P

this 'problem' with low level signals is not sampling errors; it's the ability of the format to use math to define information into the noise floor. PCM cannot do it very well.

subjectively; you hear 'into' the noise floor of analog tape and vinyl. it does not have any particular sharp cutoff to the ambient noise in whatever venue it was recorded in. this is the sense of presence analog has.

with digital you can do '-0-'. nothing. nada. no sound. which never actually exists in the real world.

which is why sacd has much more presence than PCM because it simply noise-shapes the analog signal and does not need to convert it to a 16 bit or longer word. yes; PCM can do low-level ambience but not even remotely close to how analog tape (or vinyl) can do it or even how DSD can do it. yet; on paper it is supposed to have this amazing dynamic range. but the limits of this range are 'hard' and theoretical.

when i play a 15ips 1/4" master dub and when the tape plays from the beginning, the transition from 'no signal' to 'signal', before the music starts, can many times completely define the space where the music was recorded to an amazing degree before the first note is played. PCM digital only hints at this same effect.

 

[MylesBAstor]

when i play a 15ips 1/4" master dub and when the tape plays from the beginning, the transition from 'no signal' to 'signal', before the music starts, can many times completely define the space where the music was recorded to an amazing degree before the first note is played. PCM digital only hints at this same effect.

That's an interesting comment!

I never quite thought of it that way but I hear what you describe on some unedited 15 ips 2 track master tapes that I have. There are always pauses between takes, talking after songs and the space is always there.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi

I know there is a strong tendency to reject Science in many of these discussions. It is as if Music reproduction resides on a different planet , thus cannot be bothered, let alone be explainable by mere science ... until Science supports an analog-friendly point of view then it is touted as proof.. case in point, the current discussion... I am willing to even accept his discoveries ... it is suggested as the reason why Vinyl is superior to Digital , when Vinyl has the RIAA curve working against it to reach much over 20 KHz ...
If analog current technologies are all superior to any digital, there must be some explanations, some scientific reasons... I am certain the Studer 820 was scientifically designed and with a vengeance, with very clear goals of low distortion, speed stability, Extended Frequency Response, etc.. all goals that present digital surpass so what is the argument ? That is to me the disconnect. I have no qualms accepting that indeed it could be that analog is superior but so far it has not been proven , not in listening tests where the best of digital is so transparent as to food people that are die-hard analog fans once the knowledge removed .. and to me that is the real point many if not most analog fans refuse to accept the fact that this knowledge is what determine many of these preferences.. You remove it .... preferences change ... I have first-hand experience ...

What Frantz said.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

subjectively; you hear 'into' the noise floor of analog tape and vinyl. it does not have any particular sharp cutoff to the ambient noise in whatever venue it was recorded in. this is the sense of presence analog has.

Sure it has a hard cutoff point. It doesn't matter if the medium or the recording is analog or digital, there is a point at which the music is inaudible. You can decide that you prefer "fade to the noise floor" over "fade to black." You can decide that a high noise floor is a virtue for other reasons: The noise floor of vinyl, minus the pops and crackles, actually sounds kind of like room ambiance. Maybe that's the extra something some people hear in it. Call it a benefit; I'll pass. But it doesn't change the fact that the recording has an audible cut off point.

P

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi

I know there is a strong tendency to reject Science in many of these discussions. It is as if Music reproduction resides on a different planet , thus cannot be bothered, let alone be explainable by mere science ... until Science supports an analog-friendly point of view then it is touted as proof.. case in point, the current discussion... I am willing to even accept his discoveries ... it is suggested as the reason why Vinyl is superior to Digital , when Vinyl has the RIAA curve working against it to reach much over 20 KHz ...
If analog current technologies are all superior to any digital, there must be some explanations, some scientific reasons... I am certain the Studer 820 was scientifically designed and with a vengeance, with very clear goals of low distortion, speed stability, Extended Frequency Response, etc.. all goals that present digital surpass so what is the argument ? That is to me the disconnect. I have no qualms accepting that indeed it could be that analog is superior but so far it has not been proven , not in listening tests where the best of digital is so transparent as to food people that are die-hard analog fans once the knowledge removed .. and to me that is the real point many if not most analog fans refuse to accept the fact that this knowledge is what determine many of these preferences.. You remove it .... preferences change ... I have first-hand experience ...

proof?

there is no proof as to which is better or such as would satisfy both perspectives. it's a subjective question after all.

i know what visitors to my room say, who have various perspectives when they arrive, and leave with a consistent perspective. i've made it my personal goal to have top level gear in all the formats; and lots of software in every format.

i've traveled to Bruce Brown's studio; where it is easy to quickly step thru each format and draw conclusions. he does not have quite the vinyl reference i have and so our perspectives diverge on that subject, but otherwise we pretty much agree down the line.

is the best high rez PCM digital of today very very good? sure.

might it be good enough it make you forget your previous love affair with good vinyl? maybe so (if you don't hear today's best vinyl).

does that make it better at reproducing music than the best analog tape and vinyl of today? to answer that question requires spending time with the best analog has to offer. i've done that. it's only proof to me.

 

[JackD201]

Page 13

Time to bust some fences methinks.

Okay folks lets set preferences aside for now, anyway we can all agree that we listen to what we listen to first and foremost because we LIKE it Let's try another perspective and this time focus on the limitations of the mediums and assume that we are working with the better examples of each in very good condition.

LP

It's always the bass. The medium requires the bass to be attenuated and then reconstructed with EQ. Otherwise the needle would jump off the record. Hence the need for preemphasis and deemphasis across the entire range. It's just the way it is.

Digital (PCM)

Being linear as I believe Greg said the number of samples decreases every time the frequency goes up. It's Nyquist theory at work. highest frequency is ~half of the sampling rate. Resolution I believe is not distributed linearly requiring "EQ" of its own this time in the form of DSP algorithms or reconstruction filters to fill in the blanks. As opposed to LP this now happens from top to bottom as defined by the noise shaping scheme but in the top end and can have random filter foldback artifacts into the mid band. Again, that's just the way it is.

How's that for making it clear that it really is all about as Ron put's it "Flavor Choice"? Choose your poison folks just don't assume your choice is inherently better in any absolute sense because neither is anywhere near perfect.


No surprise then that folks who do both LP and CD/Lossless 16/44.1 often agree that digital has superior dynamics and pitch definition in the bass region while LP is superior in ambient cues, inner detail and reproduction of decay. Personally I find midrange to be more even in the sense that I prefer one over the other more based on the recording itself rather than the medium's character. Hmmm. Perhaps they ARE both pretty neutral across the vocal range.

So. What is this debate about again?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In my mind, the debate is about absolutes. Stuff that can be defined and even measured. It's not about the purely subjective because that is, well, purely subjective. I will not waste a moment arguing with anyone who prefers the tone or character, or even "ambient cues," whatever that means, of analog, but stuff like "inner detail" and "reproduction of decay" isn't just a matter of opinion. The amount of detail that is reproduced - inner, outer or other - is a function of what the recording and the format captures and, more importantly, reveals. I have a hard time believing that the compromises and distortions of vinyl don't mask much more detail than they reveal, relative to digital, but if there is greater detail there, it should be measurable, we shouldn't have to wax poetic about it. It should be easy to show in lower noise, lower distortion, wider, flatter frequency response, faster transient response, etc. The same applies to decay. It is how much signal remains audible for how long before it sinks into the noise floor or simply becomes inaudible. That's decay and it's easily measurable. I know, I know, ultimately it's all subjective, we don't listen to scopes, yada yada. And I agree. In the end, if you prefer vinyl and I prefer digital, there's really nothing else to say.

But that's not what this debate is about, is it?

P

 

[naturephoto1]

I love a lot of analog recordings, Myles, I just don't think they're inherently superior to good digital. But where I really part from the analog crowd is on playback media, ie: vinyl. To answer your other questions, I haven't mixed or mastered anything, the last table I had in my system was a Thorens, some time in the mid 90s, and sitting next to it was a 1/4" 15 ips tape deck. It wasn't a pro Studer, but still, I loved that deck. Even commercial tapes at 7.5 ips creamed vinyl.

P

I used a modified Thorens 125 MKII with a Rega RB300 tonearm and a Monster Alpha Genesis 500 cartridge from the late 70s/mid 80s until 2009. It was a very good set-up. I purchased my Teres Audio Certus 450, Teres Illius Tonearm, Soundsmith Strain Gauge Cartridge, and Soundsmith Strain Gauge 410 Phono Preamp in 2009. As good as the Thorens system was, it is not in the same league as my Teres/Soundsmith system. I think that you owe it to yourself to listen to something better than your Thorens had been. My upgraded (modified) digital front end is really quite good and high end for performance. I will wait to see how the old Audio Alchemy DTI PRO32 jitter reducer (I know it is old) will improve the performance particularly after modification. But, at this point, I still am of the opinion with the proper well pressed vinyl, my Teres/Soundsmith system sounds better than my digital front end.

Rich

 

[JackD201]

PP

Okay Digital Absolutist. How about you tell us absolutely how much of a digital file is made up by the noise shaping process randomly to fill in the blanks and where all this data is injected? The analog noise that you say masks the details is much more similar to the dithering and noise shaping employed in digital than your mind believes. Do you remember WHY they add this this on purpose? It's to COVER UP something called quantization distortion. An LP has it built in given the viscoelastic property of PVC and the way the material reacts to friction born heat as any analog system's equivalent quantization is determined by the density and order of their molecular structure and the finite contact area. Strange how you champion a technology that deliberately adds noise because it inherently lacks native resolution and then claims that it can capture more when the designers themselves knew they didn't. You seem like a smart enough fellow so it makes me wonder if you mean what you say or are just fooling around for entertainment.

The fact remains that 16/44.1 is the original "compressed file". It was done so by design. "Lets cut it off from 20Hz to 20kHz and limit the word length so it can fit on this silver disc that we can mass produce." Sound familiar? MP3, AAC, or even the deceased ATRAC went through the very same considerations. How much can we take out so the darned thing won't take up so much space so we can sell it cheap. Darn, reality bites.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I used a modified Thorens 125 MKII with a Rega RB300 tonearm and a Monster Alpha Genesis 500 cartridge from the late 70s/mid 80s until 2009. It was a very good set-up. I purchased my Teres Audio Certus 450, Teres Illius Tonearm, Soundsmith Strain Gauge Cartridge, and Soundsmith Strain Gauge 410 Phono Preamp in 2009. As good as the Thorens system was, it is not in the same league as my Teres/Soundsmith system. I think that you owe it to yourself to listen to something better than your Thorens had been. My upgraded (modified) digital front end is really quite good and high end for performance. I will wait to see how the old Audio Alchemy DTI PRO32 jitter reducer (I know it is old) will improve the performance particularly after modification. But, at this point, I still am of the opinion with the proper well pressed vinyl, my Teres/Soundsmith system sounds better than my digital front end.

Rich

Richard, I've listened to modern TT rigs, and some very good ones. They've improved, and so has vinyl itself, if you're willing to limit yourself to high-end examples. In spite of all of the improvements, though, vinyl's many issues have only been diminished, they haven't gone away. Vinyl has a sound of its own, and if you love it, enjoy it. I won't be going back, as now that I'm so aware of them, I can't stop hearing the issues, issues that are made even more obvious through headphone and active speaker systems, which are my systems of choice. And even if all things were equal, I couldn't go back to the fuss. I type "Waltz For Debbie" and up pops two masters of the live version by the Bill Evans Trio and the Studio version with Cannonball Adderley. I find myself listening to music I haven't listened to in years because of the access I have to digital. If I fell in love with vinyl, I'd find myself limited to the relatively few reissues that are available in audiophile pressings, because I know what the old vinyl sounds like, and I know I'm not going there.

YMMV. Enjoy the music.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The fact remains that 16/44.1 is the original "compressed file". It was done so by design. "Lets cut it off from 20Hz to 20kHz and limit the word length so it can fit on this silver disc that we can mass produce." Sound familiar?

It does sound familiar; it sounds a lot like the history of vinyl.

Were you under the impression that I think digital is perfect? Maybe you were, you called me a Digital Absolutist. I'm not. I get that digital, like analog, is fraught with compromise. "Perfect sound forever?" Nah. All Im saying is that digital's compromises are much less audible. That's the way I hear it, which of course does nothing to end the debate as you hear it another way. So what were left with is either "enjoy your choices; enjoy the music," or more objective data. I'm fine with the subjective if the analog absolutists can get past making statements ripe with implications of objective superiority. Or I'm fine with data. Show me the data. Show me vinyl's superior measurements.

P

 

[FrantzM]

PP

Okay Digital Absolutist. How about you tell us absolutely how much of a digital file is made up by the noise shaping process randomly to fill in the blanks and where all this data is injected? The analog noise that you say masks the details is much more similar to the dithering and noise shaping employed in digital than your mind believes. Do you remember WHY they add this this on purpose? It's to COVER UP something called quantization distortion. An LP has it built in given the viscoelastic property of PVC and the way the material reacts to friction born heat as any analog system's equivalent quantization is determined by the density and order of their molecular structure and the finite contact area. Strange how you champion a technology that deliberately adds noise because it inherently lacks native resolution and then claims that it can capture more when the designers themselves knew they didn't. You seem like a smart enough fellow so it makes me wonder if you mean what you say or are just fooling around for entertainment.

The fact remains that 16/44.1 is the original "compressed file". It was done so by design. "Lets cut it off from 20Hz to 20kHz and limit the word length so it can fit on this silver disc that we can mass produce." Sound familiar? MP3, AAC, or even the deceased ATRAC went through the very same considerations. How much can we take out so the darned thing won't take up so much space so we can sell it cheap. Darn, reality bites.

Jack

Any reproductive process is flawed because ..well.. it is designed by humans ... The better processes are less flawed .. Let's take aside R2R for now ... Vinyl is an extraordinary flawed process.. It is a miracle it manages to sound that "well" at times... The first brutality is the RIAA pre-emphasis.. cut the low boost the highs and this is not linear as there are some "crossover" points ... then you have to do this in reverse with an analog circuit that now cut the highs and boost the lows .. a recipe for more problem since now you are also amplifying ambient noises aka foot falls , the bass from the speakers, etc ... Let's not talk about the cutting lathe or the amplifier used to drive these and the formulation, etc... Noise shaping is benign in comparison...
The crux of the matter is: Do we like to hear things as close as possible to the way they are or are we (some of us anyway) more comfortable with the "familiar"?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Jack

Any reproductive process is flawed because ..well.. it is designed by humans ... The better processes are less flawed .. Let's take aside R2R for now ... Vinyl is an extraordinary flawed process.. It is a miracle it manages to sound that "well" at times... The first brutality is the RIAA pre-emphasis.. cut the low boost the highs and this is not linear as there are some "crossover" points ... then you have to do this in reverse with an analog circuit that now cut the highs and boost the lows .. a recipe for more problem since now you are also amplifying ambient noises aka foot falls , the bass from the speakers, etc ... Let's not talk about the cutting lathe or the amplifier used to drive these and the formulation, etc... Noise shaping is benign in comparison...
The crux of the matter is: Do we like to hear things as close as possible to the way they are or are we (some of us anyway) more comfortable with the "familiar"?

Frantz,

you sound like an angry man upset that his beautiful mistress has found a better lover; he is bitter and trying to find things to criticize. she has this freckle on her arm and maybe a birthmark on her leg. but she's a goddess and he knows it.....and she knows he knows it. all he can do is to try and convince himself that she was never as wonderful as he once thought.

your depictions of vinyl's alledged 'warts' don't jive with 95% of my listening experience. sure; there are flawed Lps and the science of Lps can be challenged. but go ahead and bring on any digital and listen to it head to head with the best of vinyl. no contest.

if the 'hassel' 'expense' and 'complications' of vinyl are no longer justifyable to you, and you enjoy the simplicity of digital considering it's improved performance who can argue that logic. vinyl is a comittment and requires lots of assets to do at a high level. but your objectivity toward how the performance is not really there is lacking.

i can listen to Lps for days on end and never get any sort of impression of any of those 'freckles' you mention. i have literally thousands of Lps which play back flawlessly. and......this is the 'native' format for the best music we all want to listen to. and at the end of the day it is still about listening to the best music at the highest level of fidelity possible.

Mike

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frantz,

you sound like an angry man upset that his beautiful mistress has found a better lover; he is bitter and trying to find things to criticize. she has this freckle on her arm and maybe a birthmark on her leg. but she's a goddess and he knows it.....and she knows he knows it. all he can do is to try and convince himself that she was never as wonderful as he once thought.

Mike

You sound like a man hopelessly in love with a woman whose beauty has faded. There are younger, more beautiful women all around him. Many of them are, in fact, more beautiful than she was, even in her youth. But you cannot see them as they are. You cannot see past your love. To you, the object of your love is more beautiful than any other woman in the world. Your devotion would be admirable, it would even be noble if you could see it for what it is, but you can't, and you rail and fuss against those who do not see that she is more beautiful than all other women. You insist that they are wrong. You are shown pictures of your octogenarian love next to photos of Scarlett Johannsen and you say that the pictures are wrong, that they don't really show her. You insist that your love's superiority is a fact that all men should embrace when, in fact, her flower has faded, and was never quite as bright as your memory of her.

Those of us who can see her clearly envy your love. But we regret your disillusionment.

P

 

[Gregadd]

Not a romantic

You sound like a man hopelessly in love with a woman whose beauty has faded. There are younger, more beautiful women all around him. Many of them are, in fact, more beautiful than she was, even in her youth. But you cannot see them as they are. You cannot see past your love. To you, the object of your love is more beautiful than any other woman in the world. Your devotion would be beautiful, it would even be noble if you could see it for what it is, but you can't, and you rail and fuss against those who do not see that she is more beautiful than all other women. You insist that they are wrong. You are shown pictures of your octogenarian love next to photos of Scarlett Johannsen and you say that the pictures are wrong, that they don't really show her. You insist that your love's superiority is a fact that all men should embrace when, in fact, her flower has faded, and was never quite as bright as your memory of her.

Those of us who can see her clearly envy your love. But we regret your disillusionment.


P

I get the point but I hope your significant other never reads it.

 

[Gregadd]

Most of the enumerated faults wow, flutter, rumble,etc, jitter are faults of the playback device not the storage medium. They can be minimized.

 

[FrantzM]

Not really Mike
I do enjoy Vinyl ... I do believe that despite its limitations it is very much capable of reproducing music very accurately...In this regard however it is surpassed by R2R and the reasons why are purely scientific. It can be easily proven where and why R2R surpass LP... The specs will quickly tell. By the way it is interesting that with R2R many have gotten excellent results with unmodified 70~80 Solid State (Studer 820, Technics RS 15xx, etc) but I digress. So why the superior specs of digital would not translate in better performance?
I no longer contend that our current (not that I think we will develop any more of these) analog formats are superior to ALL digital. I could concede begrudgingly that the best R2R and LP surpass the best CD but not that the better Hi Rez , HRx in particular are not as good and often superior to their analog counterparts ...
I refuse to invoke science when convenient and refute it when it infirm my/our preference-tainted r descriptions of our perceptions. We are not very accurate, our psychology takes over our sense of objectivity, this is proven every day by the advertising littering our airwaves, our landscapes, our lives ... Yet in this hobby we refuse categorically to accept that premise. Many of our evaluation are made with the knowledge of what is playing ... Which we know very well doesn’t lead to fair and balanced conclusions. I am not ready to accept our hyperboles as “proofs” .. “Smoke”, “not even close” are falsities and we know it , in the absence of knowledge to repeat myself our so called-preferences change.
That is my point on the digital to analog debate. I for now, will pursue digital. Cheaper, more efficient technically superior and getting better. Many here would be surprised to experience the Transparency the best digital is capable of: Record an LP with the best Digital and most audiophiles, including a good number on this forum (I am nice today, I mean ALL but won’t say it ) will not be able to discern the (dreaded) digital provenance.
I have decided to embrace the future and am looking for better reproduction in my home... It means better attention to the fundamentals, Room Acoustics comes first, eschewing many of of the past fixations (cables)… I may join the nostalgia one of these days (R2R, maybe a decent good Vinyl rig)... simply for nostalgia sake; I don’t for a second believe that our past is brighter than our future... Our meeting on this (digital) virtual forum, is proof of it

 

[JackD201]

So subjective is okay now. Nice, at least we are starting to have some common ground now P in that what we choose is what we like more because of what we hear and not just by what's been measured.