Analog Apologist

[Steve Williams]

Its a glitch still

In some threads when I post it will show up twice. I cannot even delete the duplicate as admin. Go figure

 

[Steve Williams]

I was finally able to delete the duplicate post.

 

[RBFC]

I, too, would like to see discussion without slinging any dirt. This is a pseudo-political topic and will generate high emotion on both sides.

My immediate impression is as follows: Anyone making a "definitive" statement regarding the superiority of either medium should ABSOLUTELY have the capability and availability of SOTA rigs (both analog and digital) in their own listening room. Familiarity with the room and remainder of the reproduction chain may remove other sources of bias in one's preference. Regardless, this preference is truly only valid for that individual's room, since other acoustical spaces and electronics/speakers setups may provide different results. I, in an attempt to be reasonable, believe that I have not heard enough systems for sufficient time and exposure that I could possibly force my personal preferences onto all others in a blanket statement.

As we saw with high-negative feedback amps, etc., selected measurements do not always fully describe the listening experience. Therefore, I don't believe that quoting scientific measurement data is sufficient to proclaim digital's superiority. The proof is in the pudding.

Lee

 

[MylesBAstor]

I, too, would like to see discussion without slinging any dirt. This is a pseudo-political topic and will generate high emotion on both sides.

My immediate impression is as follows: Anyone making a "definitive" statement regarding the superiority of either medium should ABSOLUTELY have the capability and availability of SOTA rigs (both analog and digital) in their own listening room. Familiarity with the room and remainder of the reproduction chain may remove other sources of bias in one's preference. Regardless, this preference is truly only valid for that individual's room, since other acoustical spaces and electronics/speakers setups may provide different results. I, in an attempt to be reasonable, believe that I have not heard enough systems for sufficient time and exposure that I could possibly force my personal preferences onto all others in a blanket statement.

As we saw with high-negative feedback amps, etc., selected measurements do not always fully describe the listening experience. Therefore, I don't believe that quoting scientific measurement data is sufficient to proclaim digital's superiority. The proof is in the pudding.

Lee

Amen to that.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear friends: A thread growing faster where different subjects/topics already touched and IMHO where in the main topic digital vs analog there is no sure winner because IMHO it can't be winner in this kind of topic debate.

We have here two totally different music source technologies a digital one and an analog one where the only " point " that share between it is that in both you can make and play music recordings and after that there is no more joining " aspects " between them.

No one like already said it by many of you is perfect and certainly the analog source is almost " primitive " against the digital medium and certainly too with more imperfections that its digital counterpart.
Like some of you sometimes I wonder why with all its imperfections/distortions the analog alternative sounds so good and I don't have the precise answers and till today that I know no one has it.

IMHO we can't compare each to other: apple against bananas, makes no sense to me at all other that some kind of " fun " but with no serious conclusions that can help us. So in some way is a futile and endless debate.

If we all know the analog limitations the commercial digital source/alternative ( CD/Redbook. ) has at least one that's critical and goes against the music, how the music " works " and how we perceive it.
I'm talking about music/notes and his harmonics.
When we attend at a music hall or at a jazz club the music we heard is notes+harmonics, when we attend to Niagara falls what we heard are: " sounds "+ harmonics. This is the way we perceive any sound.
To any recording source could handle the music+harmonics it needs wide band frequeny that not stop at 22.1khz. A recording 5khz note don't " finish " there but the harmonic " enhance " and makes the music overall enjoyment: this through the CD can't happen and our brain/ears knows exactly when we are hearing an un-natural digital alternative, in the other side the analog permit a " complete " hearing of the music: notes+harmonics due to its wider frequency range.

That you like it more the digital than analog or analog than digital means almost nothing. Like I said It is IMHO not fair to compare both technologies and is not fair for both.

I'm not entilted with either technology, I'm entilted with the music and the joy and pleasure that we can have through recording music.
My commitmen is to perform in my audio system what is on the recording that permit me the higher " pleasure/emotions " that only the music can do it.

For I can be nearer on that target I use any technology that's on hand ( digital, analog, SS, tube, MC, MM, ) and that meet my music quality priorities.

Till today the analog alternative meets in better way those personal priorities but when necessary I use the digital one especially DVDA or music ( CD ) not recorded in LP.

To say that one source is better than the other IMHO is a subject misunderstood and unfair both ways.

In the other side is totally unfair ( for them. ) that people like PP or the other gentleman that by 1986 stop to hear analog posted against analog with out today analog own system reference ( they are in its own rights, this is a free forum. ) and is unfair for they because IMHO and due that they don't have an analog reference means that they ( with all respect ) do not know what are talking about.

I know some gentlemans here like A. Porter, Gregaad, M Lavigne, etc. and they all are deep experienced music lovers and that they take its time in this " debate " is a compliment for all of us.

I always say/said that every single day is a learning one and reading the thread I learned, no doubt about, but for we can learn ( on this topic or any other ) we need first than all: open mind " , not all what we say is or must be in the way we think some " parts " are wrong or at least different from what other people thinks and we have to accept this fact to learn and take advantage of what we learn.

Of course that there are many things to argue about digital vs analog and many of those things you are already touched in the thread.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Steve Williams]

I, too, would like to see discussion without slinging any dirt. This is a pseudo-political topic and will generate high emotion on both sides.

My immediate impression is as follows: Anyone making a "definitive" statement regarding the superiority of either medium should ABSOLUTELY have the capability and availability of SOTA rigs (both analog and digital) in their own listening room. Familiarity with the room and remainder of the reproduction chain may remove other sources of bias in one's preference. Regardless, this preference is truly only valid for that individual's room, since other acoustical spaces and electronics/speakers setups may provide different results. I, in an attempt to be reasonable, believe that I have not heard enough systems for sufficient time and exposure that I could possibly force my personal preferences onto all others in a blanket statement.

As we saw with high-negative feedback amps, etc., selected measurements do not always fully describe the listening experience. Therefore, I don't believe that quoting scientific measurement data is sufficient to proclaim digital's superiority. The proof is in the pudding.

Lee

Thanks Lee

 

[LesAuber]

I agree with Lee also, well other than the SOTA requirement. While I've heard some really fine sounding SOTA gear I've no interest in being bound to it. The point about high negative feedback is a good one. Superb measurements and lifeless sound.

Personally I don't know how one would go about proving the superiority of one playback system over the other with today's technology. The playback system must convey the emotion of the music which is the point I think Raul was trying to make. I don't know how you measure that offhand. Perhaps a polygraph or EEG? Real time MRI of the brain activity? And even if measured how would you make sense of it?

I also have found that the only real way to make this determination is long listening tests particularly in home with the rest of the gear the component will be used with. In the end the system must serve the music. Both the emotion and sound that evokes at least a taste of live music. To this end I've not noticed that either route is particularly cheap or easy.

For those that need proof of one or the other, have at it, but without me. I've better ways to spend my time. These debates are much like arguing religion with a priest. You can't win as he has faith on his side. In this case whether your faith is in science or art no ones opinion changes and the debate goes on in circles with no one changing their mind. I've followed this circle around long enough through the multiple barely civil loops. Ciao.

 

[Steve Williams]

Terrific post Les

thanks for being the voice of reason

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

About Lee's last post.

Emotion in music is carried through physical means and we know very well what they are.. Sounds. These can be measured and rather well. The issue is how well an equipment reproduce these sounds. No EEG or EKG needed, truly. I do agree with the need for extended listening session with an equipment before making a choice.
There is an issue which may forever be forever sidestepped by many: Why is that many recollections of perceptions change so dramatically when the knowledge is removed? Stress, Short Auditory memory, etc are involved but I know and it is disturbing for many when they realize that that many of our most dearly held views do not hold when the knowledge is removed. ... Many Ardent Analog defenders have a hard time distinguishing an analog copied through suitable digital converters. ( I think one of them was no other than Michael Fremer who admitted that, it wasn't a clean case , not verbatim, but that he would have had a hard time distinguishing between the two... Wouldn't that suggest that the "smokes", "not even close" and other hyperbole no longer apply to the best digital?

The subject has an emotional tone in it and not many would even want to be convinced ...So views will be held more closely, measurements rejected for the purpose at hand ... That's OK there are more important things in life .. TO paraphrase another poster.. let's enjoy the music..

My Parting shot: I was at OB's, he played a cut of Boz Scaggs talking and improvising .. It was surreal.. Took me a while to regroup after spewing a few expletives realizing that only Steve and I were in the room .. I honestly for a few incredible seconds, thought there were someone else in the room ... The source was a CD ...

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hi

About Lee's last post.

Emotion in music is carried through physical means and we know very well what they are.. Sounds. These can be measured and rather well. The issue is how well an equipment reproduce these sounds. No EEG or EKG needed, truly. I do agree with the need for extended listening session with an equipment before making a choice.
There is an issue which may forever be forever sidestepped by many: Why is that many recollections of perceptions change so dramatically when the knowledge is removed? Stress, Short Auditory memory, etc are involved but I know and it is disturbing for many when they realize that that many of our most dearly held views do not hold when the knowledge is removed. ... Many Ardent Analog defenders have a hard time distinguishing an analog copied through suitable digital converters. ( I think one of them was no other than Michael Fremer who admitted that, it wasn't a clean case , not verbatim, but that he would have had a hard time distinguishing between the two... Wouldn't that suggest that the "smokes", "not even close" and other hyperbole no longer apply to the best digital?

The subject has an emotional tone in it and not many would even want to be convinced ...So views will be held more closely, measurements rejected for the purpose at hand ... That's OK there are more important things in life .. TO paraphrase another poster.. let's enjoy the music..

My Parting shot: I was at OB's, he played a cut of Boz Scaggs talking and improvising .. It was surreal.. Took me a while to regroup after spewing a few expletives realizing that only Steve and I were in the room .. I honestly for a few incredible seconds, thought there were someone else in the room ... The source was a CD ...

One of HP's better know quotes: if you want to enjoy digital, stop listening to analog.

Here's the deal; you don't know what you're missing til you hear it. Sure it sounded real good on Steve's system; but how much better would the LP have sounded played on a SOTA table (like what Mike L. has at home)? Gotta compare apples with apples.

 

[Ron Party]

Sure it sounded real good on Steve's system; but how much better would the LP have sounded played on a SOTA table (like what Mike L. has at home)? Gotta compare apples with apples.

I agree. Apples to apples.

Now you frame the question as how much *better* it would sound. It also may sound the same and it may sound worse.

Moreover, how one would go about making that determination is critical. The process itself must pass scrutiny, and sighted with all of the expectancy, confirmation and other biases in full force and effect doesn't cut it.

In addition one must define one's terms - in this case one must define the standard by which *better* is to be adjudicated. In this thread we've read different ides of what that term means. Frantz alluded to the distinction in his last post, i.e., emotional impact versus sound.

Finally, no matter what process is used, and no matter what standard is used to define the term better, all the apples to apples comparison would tell us is that, in this one case, to-wit Boz Scaggs, either the analog or digital version was deemed better in Steve's or Mike's room with his gear at that one time. Reliably and credibly extrapolating from that to make any sort of conclusion about the absolute capabilities of either medium would be futile.

 

[FrantzM]

Myles

This issue of not having heard the SOTA comes again and again FWIW I have heard SOTA analog including Sirius, SME, Walker, Basis and Clearaudio , Brinkman, several french TT, some of these were long Term Audition. I have had SOTA DAC and transport as well.. SO SOTA, I have experienced. Lately, however, I haven't felt the need for analog SOTA, R2R cannot squelch my thirst for Music and Musical Discovery (What about a Rapper from Vietnam, I heard the other day on NPR !! The kid can rap, he lived in LA for a while) Yep R2R and I repeat because it is technically superior to LP... I knew it from the specs and have heard it too. . I have had the opportunity to also listen to and possess one of the best digital combo, I have recently experienced professional digital and regularly attend to live music every year, this year more so than ever being in the USA et all..

So it is not a case of having just discovered Digital. It is a case for me of being honest with myself and tell things how I see them , or better hear them. I know I am comparing apples and apples when I contend and know that without the knowledge most audiophiles are fooled by digital. I know for example there hasn't been much progress on the analog front when the best in analog is the old Studer SS R2R or that one the best sounding tube amplifier use old circuitry (>70) years) ... I no longer go on the audiophile circuits, listening every week to people systems, many of these wrong-sounding or care about the latest tweak... not really I pursue the best means to reproduce music in my home. I know it starts with the room and the speakers ... So no I no longer care much about the analog SOTA for music reproduction in the home; there is now a different SOTA... The basis of this SOTA technology is the same as the incredibly powerful tool we are discussing on, through and with .. THAT is SOTA. It is everywhere in our lives .. We can choose to be luddites. One is entitled to such position after all .. or we can accept the fact and enjoy it to the fullest ...

 

[MylesBAstor]

I agree. Apples to apples.

Now you frame the question as how much *better* it would sound. It also may sound the same and it may sound worse.

Moreover, how one would go about making that determination is critical. The process itself must pass scrutiny, and sighted with all of the expectancy, confirmation and other biases in full force and effect doesn't cut it.

In addition one must define one's terms - in this case one must define the standard by which *better* is to be adjudicated. In this thread we've read different ides of what that term means. Frantz alluded to the distinction in his last post, i.e., emotional impact versus sound.

Finally, no matter what process is used, and no matter what standard is used to define the term better, all the apples to apples comparison would tell us is that, in this one case, to-wit Boz Scaggs, either the analog or digital version was deemed better in Steve's or Mike's room with his gear at that one time. Reliably and credibly extrapolating from that to make any sort of conclusion about the absolute capabilities of either medium would be futile.

So why don't you just put a burlap bag over your head to remove sighted biases? Tell me. Have you ever heard a speaker with a curtain in front of it? I have and it sucks. Sorry but an acoustically transparent curtain is an oxymoron.

And I've seen, as I'm sure you have, measurement of speakers taken with and without grille cloth and the effect on the measurments. So now it's ok to put the speaker behind a curtain because Sean says it is?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

when listening perspectives get catagorically invalidated by participants by invoking 'the blind testing pont of view' then there is no longer common ground to base exchange of ideas.

Good Lord, man, when did that happen? You gave me a detailed description of the last 15 years of your audio hobby and how you have decided what is good, I gave you a description of how I got to where a am on the same subject. Nothing more. How does the mere mention of someone else employing blind listening in their journey "catagorically invalidate" your listening perspective. I've said it repeatedly, if you subjectively prefer vinyl, enjoy.

No basically you blew Mike off inferring he was just into listening to expensive high-end gear and your route was holier and mighter because you are spending your money on the music and not equipment.

I've spent the last 17 pages talking to you and Mike. I'd hardly call that blowing anyone off. And the above statement applies to me alone. I don't doubt that Mike has a massive music collection that he spends hours a day listening to it. He must have great resources. I have neither the time nor the money to take his path, but he told me about it, so I reciprocated. I'm probably as gear-obsessive as anyone. But it does take on a very different form.

It's a very sensitive crowd around here.

P

 

[Ron Party]

Wow. A burlap bag? A strawman assertion if ever there was one. No wonder it is so difficult to have a rational discussion about blind testing.

For those that don't understand but who are interested and still reading this thread, a blind test in this case would not mean a literal blind fold over one's eyes. It means merely that one doesn't know if the source is analog or digital. One can have his/her eyes wide open and gaze upon anything he/she wishes, except one: the source.

Now if you've got another, better, more reliable, repeatable, way to conduct a comparison that does better to eliminate these biases, then not just the entire scientific community, but the entire world would love to hear (no pun intended) about it.

As an aside, since it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread, if you want to know about the scrim used by Dr. Olive in his blind speaker evaluation, including any possible undue influence it may have, well, he's a member of this forum and several others. I'm sure you can just ask him and he will gladly tell you.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Wow. A burlap bag? A strawman assertion if ever there was one. No wonder it is so difficult to have a rational discussion about blind testing.

For those that don't understand but who are interested and still reading this thread, a blind test in this case would not mean a literal blind fold over one's eyes. It means merely that one doesn't know if the source is analog or digital. One can have his/her eyes wide open and gaze upon anything he/she wishes, except one: the source.

Now if you've got another, better, more reliable, repeatable, way to conduct a comparison that does better to eliminate these biases, then not just the entire scientific community, but the entire world would love to hear (no pun intended) about it.

As an aside, since it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread, if you want to know about the scrim used by Dr. Olive in his blind speaker evaluation, including any possible undue influence it may have, well, he's a member of this forum and several others. I'm sure you can just ask him and he will gladly tell you.

Yes hire sight challenged audiophiles to take the test.

 

[Ron Party]

Yes hire sight challenged individuals to do the test.

Neither the members of this forum, nor any guests who might be reading this thread but have not yet joined, are *sight challenged*? How are all of us non-sight challenged people supposed to do it?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Neither the members of this forum, nor any guests who might be reading this thread but have not yet joined, are *sight challenged*? How are all of us non-sight challenged people supposed to do it?

Oh I've seen quite a few sight challenged people at audio shows; one I know even owns a shop in NJ.

 

[FrantzM]

Oh I've seen quite a few sight challenged people at audio shows; one I know even owns a shop in NJ.

We are really moving sideways ...

 

[Ron Party]

Here is the answer:

http://www.todayandtomorrow.net/2010/06/10/a-vinyl-and-cd-release-on-one-disc/