Great article on "Analogue Warmth"

[audio-land]

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.

I rather spend my limited time listening. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best.

 

[Purite Audio]

I rather spend my limited time listening. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best.

Have you tried placing the towers of the speakers on the outside and the bass bins on the inside , and a thick carpet, and possibly some diffusion on the ceiling might improve the SQ.
Keith.

 

[audio-land]

Have you tried placing the towers of the speakers on the outside and the bass bins on the inside , and a thick carpet, and possibly some diffusion on the ceiling might improve the SQ.
Keith.

Keith, you better ask Ralph himself on who we are and what we are doing here before talking these kind of questions on the open forum. It is really unnecessary, really.

 

[Gregadd]

 

[Al M.]

Haven't heard of what? Please tell me which digitals are you talking about?

Just as you probably carefully listen to your customers, perhaps you should acquire the habit of carefully reading other people's posts. I mentioned it in the very post you were replying to.

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.

I said that it was stunning. I didn't claim that it was as good as truly great analog. I don't know because I haven't heard both side by side in the same system, but I suspect it comes close, possibly even very close. And for sure I bet that it sounds better than just good analog, which in quality is below the very best.

On a somewhat different note, what people prefer may be related to sound quality most of the time, but not necessarily so in all cases. Preferences may be chosen in part according to criteria different from actual sound quality.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

the Trinity dac is judged better than the Vivaldi stack generally by those who have directly compared them....but let's just say it's on the same level. so while I personally don't have experience with the Vivaldi; I do think I know what state of the art with digital is. and in my system that level is clearly bettered by vinyl and tape. and it's not really close.

so when you suggest that those that prefer analog 'haven't heard yet what digital can do' you are simply wrong. make the effort to directly compare them daily and the hierarchy is clear.

this takes nothing away from the Trinity dac or the Vivaldi stack (or the MSB Select which might be a little better than either of those). that level of digital performance is astonishing and a great way to go. but IMHO at the top of the music reproduction food chain analog sits there without peer.

 

[bonzo75]

Once you hear the difference between Vinyl and digital, it does not matter if the digital is Oppo or Vivaldi

 

[PeterA]

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.

Yes, Al M's system does indeed portray a sense of Presence. The S7/Spectral/Vivaldi system that we heard at Goodwins two weeks ago had even more to my ears. So, digital systems can have presence just like analog sourced systems can have presence. However, I have found that it is very rare in both cases. I agree with Al, this notion is not dependent on format. I happen to think it has much more to do with system set up and listener/speaker/room interaction. The quality of the recording also seems to matter.

 

[Al M.]

the Trinity dac is judged better than the Vivaldi stack generally by those who have directly compared them....but let's just say it's on the same level. so while I personally don't have experience with the Vivaldi; I do think I know what state of the art with digital is. and in my system that level is clearly bettered by vinyl and tape. and it's not really close.

so when you suggest that those that prefer analog 'haven't heard yet what digital can do' you are simply wrong. make the effort to directly compare them daily and the hierarchy is clear.

this takes nothing away from the Trinity dac or the Vivaldi stack (or the MSB Select which might be a little better than either of those). that level of digital performance is astonishing and a great way to go. but IMHO at the top of the music reproduction food chain analog sits there without peer.

Fair enough, Mike.

It may very well be as you say, but I reserve judgment until I have been able to make such a comparison myself. I do agree that analog on the top-level is very hard to beat or even to approach, no argument from me here, that's for sure.

Yet please note that I haven't talked about those who simply prefer analog, but about detractors of digital -- the typical bunch of those who claim that it isn't any good, that it will always sound nasty, that it is per se uninvolving, cold, sterile etc. Obviously, you are not one of these.

I also appreciate that you emphasize that the level of performance of current top digital is astonishing and a great way to go. It really is.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Fair enough, Mike.

It may very well be as you say, but I reserve judgment until I have been able to make such a comparison myself. I do agree that analog on the top-level is very hard to beat, no argument from me here, that's for sure.

Yet please note that I haven't talked about those who simply prefer analog, but about detractors of digital -- the typical bunch of those who claim that it isn't any good, that it will always sound nasty, that it is per se uninvolving, cold, sterile etc. Obviously, you are not one of these.

I also appreciate that you emphasize that the level of performance of current top digital is astonishing and a great way to go. It really is.

I think it's important to note that especially on the PCM side of things; it does take some effort to overcome the fundamental nasties inherent in the format. the good news is that it can be done. either with very very spendy hardware solutions such as the Trinity, Vivaldi, or MSB Select.......or potentially some of these cutting edge up sampling to 256dsd solutions being discussed right now. so those who have not yet been exposed to PCM 'solved' do need to get up to speed to appreciate how far things have come.

I'm not suggesting that the up sampling to 256dsd will get you all the way to those spendy hardware PCM solutions......we don't yet know how close they get. lots of us are watching that develop. I hope it works out that software can get it done.

I love digital done right and listen to it a lot. it's just ignorant to generalize negatively about digital.

 

[Al M.]

I think it's important to note that especially on the PCM side of things; it does take some effort to overcome the fundamental nasties inherent in the format. the good news is that it can be done. either with very very spendy hardware solutions such as the Trinity, Vivaldi, or MSB Select.......or potentially some of these cutting edge up sampling to 256dsd solutions being discussed right now. so those who have not yet been exposed to PCM 'solved' do need to get up to speed to appreciate how far things have come.

I would disagree that there are nasties inherent in the PCM format. What I do agree with is that there are nasties inherent in most current practical implementations of the PCM fornat. But as you point out, there are implementations where these nasties are absent.

I love digital done right and listen to it a lot. it's just ignorant to generalize negatively about digital.

Yes, and it is also just ignorant to generalize negatively about analog -- it doesn't measure well...blah, blah, it has too many distortions...blah, blah..., and so on. I bet that if those who talk like that would ever hear a well set-up top-level analog system their jaws would drop and they would realize what fools they are.

There are extremists and fundamentalists on both sides, unfortunately.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Steve Williams, Mike L., Rockitman, MadFloyd and many others here all seem to have fairly high levels of both formats. From what I have read on their system pages, they tend to listen to more analog.

I hope that Blizzard finishes his products soon so that his predictions about the future and what will be preferred can be tested. If his amp and digital player are indeed far superior, that will be welcome news because as things stand now, I do not want to spend the money that it will take to substantially improve my system further. It would be great to be able to jump into digital within the next five years for far superior sound at a much lower cost than analog. As he writes, time will tell. I am open to the possibilities. One challenge I see is the availability of software.

This is where Al M has a very good point. The available music is mostly on CD, (and to a slightly lesser extent on vinyl). Software is one hurdle for Blizzard's vision of the future. The other it seems to me is simply the ritual or activity of playing vinyl. The collecting of something physical, the tangible quality. And the very cool mechanical objects that play records. The thread is not about these things, but they are all a part of it. People enjoy playing with things.

I wish Blizzard well. Pushing boundaries for better performance and lower prices can only be a good thing for this hobby.

 

[DaveC]

the Trinity dac is judged better than the Vivaldi stack generally by those who have directly compared them....but let's just say it's on the same level. so while I personally don't have experience with the Vivaldi; I do think I know what state of the art with digital is. and in my system that level is clearly bettered by vinyl and tape. and it's not really close.

so when you suggest that those that prefer analog 'haven't heard yet what digital can do' you are simply wrong. make the effort to directly compare them daily and the hierarchy is clear.

this takes nothing away from the Trinity dac or the Vivaldi stack (or the MSB Select which might be a little better than either of those). that level of digital performance is astonishing and a great way to go. but IMHO at the top of the music reproduction food chain analog sits there without peer.

+1...

I've heard the Vivaldi vs RtR in the same system, no contest. The RtR was in another league. And top end MSB vs a middle end TT setup listening to some of the same tracks on both, and while the differences were subtle the vinyl was clearly better.

IME, you don't need to reach "SOTA" analog for it to clearly beat any digital source. Good, but middle of the road TT setup is still better, RtR is in another league. Just what I've heard...

Digital has issues we don't fully understand, some amount of hardness, some distortions we aren't measuring or even talking about that is fatiguing and irritating over time. Analog does not, the distortions are more benign and are not irritating in the same way, the presentation seems truer to life and makes a better emotional connection to the listener. This is why pretty much everyone who has an open mind (and enough experience) will most likely prefer analog.

 

[Gregadd]

We can genralize about digital beiing bad becase gnerally it was. Note I use the past tense. Those gneralizations become less apropriate as time goes by...Any attempt to imprve digital of course requires one to be specific.

 

[steve williams]

Steve Williams, Mike L., Rockitman, MadFloyd and many others here all seem to have fairly high levels of both formats. From what I have read on their system pages, they tend to listen to more analog.

I hope that Blizzard finishes his products soon so that his predictions about the future and what will be preferred can be tested. If his amp and digital player are indeed far superior, that will be welcome news because as things stand now, I do not want to spend the money that it will take to substantially improve my system further. It would be great to be able to jump into digital within the next five years for far superior sound at a much lower cost than analog. As he writes, time will tell. I am open to the possibilities. One challenge I see is the availability of software.

This is where Al M has a very good point. The available music is mostly on CD, (and to a slightly lesser extent on vinyl). Software is one hurdle for Blizzard's vision of the future. The other it seems to me is simply the ritual or activity of playing vinyl. The collecting of something physical, the tangible quality. And the very cool mechanical objects that play records. The thread is not about these things, but they are all a part of it. People enjoy playing with things.

I wish Blizzard well. Pushing boundaries for better performance and lower prices can only be a good thing for this hobby.

Hi Peter

To respond to your comment, since I got my AFO in August I have listened to nothing but analog since that time and I am loving every moment. At this time I have absolutely no desire to listen to digital. This doesn't mean that I don't like it as I like all formats. The emotional involvement however that I get from vinyl just isn't there with digital

 

[DaveC]

I think it's important to note that especially on the PCM side of things; it does take some effort to overcome the fundamental nasties inherent in the format. the good news is that it can be done. either with very very spendy hardware solutions such as the Trinity, Vivaldi, or MSB Select.......or potentially some of these cutting edge up sampling to 256dsd solutions being discussed right now. so those who have not yet been exposed to PCM 'solved' do need to get up to speed to appreciate how far things have come.

I'm not suggesting that the up sampling to 256dsd will get you all the way to those spendy hardware PCM solutions......we don't yet know how close they get. lots of us are watching that develop. I hope it works out that software can get it done.

I love digital done right and listen to it a lot. it's just ignorant to generalize negatively about digital.

I agree with this too, PCM seems like a very flawed format and produces some very nasty hard-sounding distortion, especially in budget gear... but the difference between top end digital and a spending a few grand is shrinking rapidly. I don't think even the top end digital has managed to completely solve the issues, which is why analog is still better.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I would disagree that there are nasties inherent in the PCM format. What I do agree with is that there are nasties inherent in most current practical implementations of the PCM fornat. But as you point out, there are implementations where these nasties are absent.

when you read about what it takes to make a dac that solves PCM you realize the shortcomings of the format. it does have a nasty top end and lacks substance and depth unless you find a 'work-around' to solve those or an output stage to color them. I guess it comes down to semantics as to whether we view these 'heroic' steps as simple implementation of PCM or as 'work-arounds' to get by the fundamental problems. I tend to view it as 'fixing' an inherent problem.

a matter of perspective.

 

[amirm]

In order to repair something you have to admit there is a problem.

1+1 = 2. What is the problem in that? And what is there to admit? If you believe there is a problem, you need to demonstrate it using factual matters that can be verified. Otherwise we will be chasing ghosts.

Many lose ends in digital audio have been research. There is none whatsoever that points to edginess, lack of warmth, no microdetails, or whatever other subjective terms we like to use. Doctors don't go chase what patients say they need to do. They research what their peers accept as being real things to discover and cure. Why do we expect audio to work the other way around?

My choice of equipment is based on this notion that I hear it all the time. I know blah. .blah.blind test. blah, blah, blah, measurements., blah, blah ,blah, expectation biasbias,etc. I do not care to drag others into my argumrnt without reserrching exactly what they said. I was referring to reaction to different distortions. I understand from another member the work was done early on.

Choose whatever method you want. But it has to be acceptable to the scientific and engineering community to take seriously and put resources to fix things.

Really? you are quoting me Ethan? I remeber his little test. I treid to be polite.I don't see any need for ten generations. The first has all the digital distortions. My grandfather told me when I was young You don't have an opinion about everythng.

I didn't quote Ethan. I said he created a test with 10 generations of A/D and D/A. If you are right that you can easily tell the first generation, then 10th generation must be a walk in the park. I took the test. It required all of my attention and training to find the artifacts. I am confident vast majority of audiophiles can't tell those distortions or we would have inundated him with our positive results.

At some point we need to be honest with ourselves and accept what I said: that we have not in any form or fashion have been able to demonstrate in any acceptable way to the scientific community that digital has the problems we say it has. Yet we keep asking them to bend, or "admit there is a problem" as you say. How about we admit that our case may not hold water. How about that? Are you willing to admit that Greg? Or do you ask the other side what you won't do?

 

[PeterA]

Have you tried placing the towers of the speakers on the outside and the bass bins on the inside , and a thick carpet, and possibly some diffusion on the ceiling might improve the SQ.
Keith.

Keith, this comment is simply not necessary. Let us hope that the New Year brings with it a more convivial discourse.

 

[amirm]

I agree with this too, PCM seems like a very flawed format and produces some very nasty hard-sounding distortion, especially in budget gear...

Last night I was previewing Challenge Classics titles to buy some. This was on my computer workstation which has the Meridian Explorer DAC ($300 or so). It is driving a couple of NHT Pro monitors. And you know what I admired in song after song? The superb high frequencies. They were reproduced so faithfully it made me shiver. Every detail was there. This is in a system that costs $1,300 total. And this was with streaming previews!

So no, there is no hard-sounding distortions in digital. Such distortions would be clearly visible in measurements.

I am increasingly convinced that the problem is that some of us have acclimated to the soft and less than perfect reproduction of audio through older recordings and analog formats that when the real deal is presented to us, its solidity, impact, correctness and high dynamic range seems unnatural to us. At least to some of us .