Great article on "Analogue Warmth"
- Thread starter Blizzard
- Start date
- Status
Happy New Year to All!
Audio-land,
digital lacking presence? Wow.
Then you should listen to my system. The presence is fantastic, as also acknowledged by other people who have heard it, including Peter A. who only listens to analog. Just look at my system thread (see signature). And just yesterday I had someone else coming over who commented that the presence of presentation is so great. And yes, we also enjoyed the digital for hours.
As I stated at the first place, "For Me", if you find it otherwise, that is fine and great for you.
So theory agrees with the physics of it, measurement confirms it, blind tests don't dispute it, nor does psychoacoustics, but some audiophile hears it differently. Wonder which view had real credibility?
It would depend on who was being asked.
Some people like planar speakers, despite their measurement, blind tests, and psychoacoustics. Is that a similar situation?
No because I am not confusing my preferences for them with the idea that their appeal to me is automatically an indication of superior accuracy.
It's not just me who hears the great presence, but everybody who has heard my system, including Peter A. who only listens to analog and thus certainly has no bias towards digital.
The obvious conclusion is that there is/was something wrong with the digital that you have heard or perhaps even own. It's not the digital medium per se.
Noted, so let me add it, great for you, Peter A, all others who heard and liked your system and for all of you who love digital.
Last edited:
Technically digital is miles better than any analogue format, but the recording/mastering trumps everything.
They can both sound fantastic , enjoy.
Keith
They can both sound fantastic , enjoy.
Keith
Great statement, Keith. It would be a fitting end to this thread . . . if it were not inevitably bound to go on.
Although I don't agree,I was squite happy when digitals faults were blamed on the recording. You see finally the code of silence had been broken. For decades there was nothing qrong with digital. It was all a figment of my imagination based on mtyfixation with analogue.
In my audiophile time, since 1990, I have always been a digital-only guy. But at the same time I was always aware that great implementation of digital was elusive, and still remains to some extent, even though currently less so. We really did make progress over the decades, not just in digital playback but also in digital recording/mastering.
I do think that digital theory is correct, it's just so hard to implement it without deviations from the ideal. I am, however, happy with the digital playback that I have now, even though I know it definitely can be better -- I have heard that it can (see post #2).
No, it was not a figment of your imagination. While I was aware of it before, I now know more than ever what great analog can do -- I have heard it.
My verdict:
1. Great analog is much better than many digital proponents are aware of, because they simply haven't heard it.
2. Digital is now much better than many detractors want to believe that it is. And in an all-out assault on great implementation (e.g., dCS Vivaldi stack) it can simply be stunning -- they just haven't heard yet what digital can do.
1. Great analog is much better than many digital proponents are aware of, because they simply haven't heard it.
2. Digital is now much better than many detractors want to believe that it is. And in an all-out assault on great implementation (e.g., dCS Vivaldi stack) it can simply be stunning -- they just haven't heard yet what digital can do.
Haven't heard of what? Please tell me which digitals are you talking about? One of our customers may have it and all of them prefer analog. Yup, they have both. Mostly, they play digital when analog formats are not available.
Many listeners prefer a bit of distortion, there is nothing wrong with that, but don't confuse it with being 'better'.
Keith.
The only distortion I've heard when so called digital was played.
Let's say we installed 20 turntable last year, all of them have digital set up as well. All of them prefer analog. That tells something. You might not get it but we don't persuade or try to tell you differently.
When we are talking about SOTA analog, are we talking about vinyl, or reel-to-reel? We know what the problems are with reel-to-reel (or what the record companies designated as problems, anyway), which provided the motivation to develop the original digital recorders in the first place back in the 1970s - long before it was dreamed that the digital could be distributed to the masses directly. The output of the reel-to-reel has to be manipulated further (more "analogue warmth") in order to create the low cost medium for the masses: the LP. To me, it just seems so unlikely that this process is the best way to reproduce music. It's not exactly 'clean room' conditions...
(not suggesting there is anything wrong in this photo, but it seems typical of where audiophiles' LPs come from: that's how they're made. It isn't NASA and nor is it a lone artisan lovingly creating masterpieces in a picturesque workshop or studio)
I suggest you spend some time reading about the various analogue ( vinyl) distortions, tracking, tracing, intermodulation ,wow,flutter,rumble ,distortion from the cartridge especially at frequency extremes, and that is before your consider the 'addition' of valves, inaccurate RIAA equalisation etc etc.
Keith.
- Status
Similar threads
