Great article on "Analogue Warmth"

[amirm]

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.

I don't buy this either so go ahead and stone me for this too . My workhorse DAC remains my 15 year old DAC. Maybe folks in the last few years have figured out how to add colorations to digital in the high-end but the performance of digital has been superb for many years if the goal is transparency to what we hear.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

as far as your final point, that the reason that analog is still better because digital has not solved issues......which infers that solving those issues will take it all the way to analog....is wrong.

analog just has lots more information. and so it's a race digital (in formats that currently exist) cannot win. we continue to find more stuff in those grooves we never heard before.

maybe 32xdsd will get close.....or 64xdsd.....128xdsd anyone?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't buy this either so go ahead and stone me for this too . My workhorse DAC remains my 15 year old DAC. Maybe folks in the last few years have figured out how to add colorations to digital in the high-end but the performance of digital has been superb for many years if the goal is transparency to what we hear.

that's a batting practice fastball if I've ever seen one.

but I'll leave it alone.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

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 .

Can you elaborate with your definition of "correctness"?

 

[DaveC]

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 .

And I'm absolutely sure if you replaced that DAC with something decent you'd think twice about not hearing any issues, not hearing any hardness or your sound not being irritating. FWIW, I've come to the same conclusions as Mike Lavigne, there is an inherent problem with PCM that requires the correct hardware solutions to overcome and even then the result is only OK compared to analog.

 

[amirm]

And I'm absolutely sure if you replaced that DAC with something decent you'd think twice about not hearing any issues, not hearing any hardness or your sound not being irritating. FWIW, I've come to the same conclusions as Mike Lavigne, there is an inherent problem with PCM that requires the correct hardware solutions to overcome and even then the result is only OK compared to analog.

You know how much money there is in fixing that problem if it exists? I could patent it and make boatload of money. So why do you think no one has attempted to find and fix that problem if it indeed exists? That pot of gold is waiting...

BTW, I didn't understand the comment about my DAC. If it was something derogatory, I know I deserve it to be shaking the tree of our beliefs this way .

 

[PeterA]

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 .

I heard the "real deal" last month at the BSO. It did not sound unnatural to me. In fact, just the opposite. But you must mean something else.

Amir, on what do you base your inference that digital is the "real deal"? I think I read somewhere that you met Mike L. Were you lucky enough to hear his system? If so, you must have compared his analog to digital sources. Which sounded more real to you?

 

[amirm]

Can you elaborate with your definition of "correctness"?

I am going to sound like an arrogant you know what by telling you it comes from experience but you give me no choice .

I spent a lifetime analyzing digital audio looking for artifacts. My team developed lossy compression and my self-appointed job was to be the final arbiter of revisions of our encoders. Lossy compression works on principal of psychoacoustics but backward. It knows what we are likely not hear and stuffs distortions there. Because it is based on the model of our hearing, by definition finding those artifacts is super hard. There is a reason many people fail to hear lossy compression artifacts. That is how it is supposed to work.

Anyway back to your question, lossy compression works in by reducing the effective resolution of the frequency components of your music. It does this based on frames of audio that last milliseconds. When it reduces resolution, it spreads that distortion across that frame of audio. When you used to have a single high frequency transient, you now have skirts before and after it. The ones after it get masked usually. The ones before do not.

What does all of this gobbledygook mean? It means that if you want to be better than the general population in hearing and catching lossy compression artifacts, you better be damn good at hearing anything proceeding the transients. You train your ear to hear slightest amount of it which smears those transients and widens them. You crave and celebrate when that doesn't happen as it is darn near impossible in lossy compression.

Unfortunately my ears in this regard are in permanent instrumentation mode. I can't shut it off. I am constantly examining every high frequency transient looking for any hint of pre-echo or distinctness. When this is delivered, which is done in countless digital recordings, I know that the job is well done. This is what I call "correctness."

Despite everything I have written, I have no hope of this translating well. It is something that an ice cream taster knows at Häagen-Dazs and I don't.

 

[DaveC]

You know how much money there is in fixing that problem if it exists? I could patent it and make boatload of money. So why do you think no one has attempted to find and fix that problem if it indeed exists? That pot of gold is waiting...

BTW, I didn't understand the comment about my DAC. If it was something derogatory, I know I deserve it to be shaking the tree of our beliefs this way .

There isn't that much money because in a less expensive system there are usually all sorts of other issues and the hardness/distortion I'm talking about generally isn't the largest issue.

I didn't say anything derogatory about your DAC, I just invite you to compare it to something decent... it needn't be super expensive, something like a Sony HAP or Auralic Vega would be fine, in a decent system and see if you still think your DAC isn't creating any problems. The things I'm talking about aren't super obvious except in comparison to equipment that doesn't have the problems to the same degree.

I know you have a lot of experience with digital, but Mike and I are saying the same thing and lots and lots of folks share this opinion, I wouldn't discount it so easily...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What are "digital nasties" and "lack of substance?" Have they been demonstrated and identified in any kind of even remotely objective testing? No? Then they could just as easily be a preference for muted highs and bloated mids. And have they been demonstrated and identified in any kind of even remotely objective testing? If the answer is no to all, then this is all just audiophiles telling the rest of us what music should sound like. Yeah, I know..."trust your ears." I do. I'm not sure I trust yours, though. A few posts back, someone implied that I couldn't even know if I like digital better than analog unless I was living with a SOTA analog system. By that logic, I'd say unless you live with unamplified music playing in your listening room, you don't know what music sounds like.

Tim

 

[amirm]

There isn't that much money because in a less expensive system there are usually all sorts of other issues and the hardness/distortion I'm talking about generally isn't the largest issue.

Of course there is. This field is not remotely limited to entertainment audio. The principals of digitizing samples is used in all manner of electronic technology. If there is a flaw in it and it can be fixed, it can lead to many improvements. The front end of your mobile phone for example converts the RF signals into digital and does the decoding in that domain. If there is a fault in digitizing samples, fixing that would improve signal to noise ratio and have huge advantage. Practically every scope we use to instrument signals is also digital. Again, if there are artifacts, they show up there and removing it again will have immense value. On and on.

So I ask again, if there is a problem with sampling audio into digital domain, why is it that it is not a focus of hundreds of thousands of smart engineers around the world?

The arrow as I mentioned at the outset points back to us. While we talk about these "distortions" being readily audible to us, we have not remotely managed to make even a vague case for it. A thousand anecdotal observations doesn't make for any case. As I said, if we want this to be a problem that is worked on, we need to demonstrate it reliably and without bias. We are both unwilling and unable to do that. And that becomes our failings, not anyone else's.

Man, I am working hard to make friends in this new year, aren't I?

 

[DaveyF]

+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.

+1

I recently heard the new MSB Diamond Select DAC, compared to good vinyl it really comes off second best. Compared to tape, it has a very long way to go. However, if one is using a less resolving system in a less 'accurate' room, then I guess the difference could be perceived as small! What is interesting to me, is the fact that for the price asked for the MSB, one could put together a great vinyl set up and possibly even a great tape set up. At the meeting where I heard the MSB, I asked the designer if he had heard a good tape machine like a Studer, he simply changed the subject, LOL.

 

[Purite Audio]

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

Peter placing the twin towers of the speakers will provide a wider soundstage ,and the bass bins are crossing around 80Hz ,at that frequency the sound is omnidirectional so it doesn't matter where they sit.
It is generally accepted that reflections from the floor and ceiling are detrimental to good sound ,hence the recommendation for a carpet and perhaps ceiling absorbtion /diffusion.
All good advice I think you will find, perhaps a little more thought before posting in the New Year?
Keith.

 

[steve williams]

What I find interesting is that those who advocate digital only see just that, to wit digital only listeners. It's tough IMO to make such sweeping statements when such listeners haven't heard an analog comparison in their own rooms. There are also
Many members here who only have analog for well over 40 years and laugh at the mention of digital. It's also difficult for me to accept with such dogma that a 15 yo $300 DAC gives the same information as current SOTA DAC's. MikeL has done the comparison from the worlds best and still espouses analog to be superior.

 

[bonzo75]

Actually, I am a digital only guy advocating analog

 

[steve williams]

Actually, I am a digital only guy advocating analog

Jed

Your statement speaks volumes as you are such a good listener and have spent countless occasions all over the globe listening to great systens.

 

[DaveC]

Of course there is. This field is not remotely limited to entertainment audio. The principals of digitizing samples is used in all manner of electronic technology. If there is a flaw in it and it can be fixed, it can lead to many improvements. The front end of your mobile phone for example converts the RF signals into digital and does the decoding in that domain. If there is a fault in digitizing samples, fixing that would improve signal to noise ratio and have huge advantage. Practically every scope we use to instrument signals is also digital. Again, if there are artifacts, they show up there and removing it again will have immense value. On and on.

So I ask again, if there is a problem with sampling audio into digital domain, why is it that it is not a focus of hundreds of thousands of smart engineers around the world?

The arrow as I mentioned at the outset points back to us. While we talk about these "distortions" being readily audible to us, we have not remotely managed to make even a vague case for it. A thousand anecdotal observations doesn't make for any case. As I said, if we want this to be a problem that is worked on, we need to demonstrate it reliably and without bias. We are both unwilling and unable to do that. And that becomes our failings, not anyone else's.

Man, I am working hard to make friends in this new year, aren't I?

I understand what you're saying but I'm not knowledgeable enough about DAC design to have any good ideas. In this case I can only tell you what I hear, and the fact that lots of folks hear the same thing. IMO, it's unscientific to simply dismiss these observations, in most any other area of study it would be enough to form a hypothesis. It's easily demonstrable though, if you'd care to perform the comparison I put forth in the last posts. Test your $300 DAC against something like a Sony HAP or Auralic Aries and tell me the $300 DAC doesn't have problems... then test the Sony or Auralic against a SOTA DAC and you'll find another level of problems have been addressed.

It kind of seems you're saying a DAC is a DAC and they all sound the same because the sampling process is perfect, kind of like all amps sound the same and CD gave us perfect sound forever. It's just not true in real life.

 

[DaveC]

Actually, I am a digital only guy advocating analog

+1

If I could afford a decent analog source I'd own it. It just can't be a financial priority right now.

 

[Purite Audio]

I am old enough to have bought records ,and digital , I have a turntable and files,Tidal and CDs.
I find the mastering/recording trumps format every time.
Keith.

 

[Groucho]

Of course there is. This field is not remotely limited to entertainment audio. The principals of digitizing samples is used in all manner of electronic technology. If there is a flaw in it and it can be fixed, it can lead to many improvements. The front end of your mobile phone for example converts the RF signals into digital and does the decoding in that domain. If there is a fault in digitizing samples, fixing that would improve signal to noise ratio and have huge advantage. Practically every scope we use to instrument signals is also digital. Again, if there are artifacts, they show up there and removing it again will have immense value. On and on.

So I ask again, if there is a problem with sampling audio into digital domain, why is it that it is not a focus of hundreds of thousands of smart engineers around the world?

The arrow as I mentioned at the outset points back to us. While we talk about these "distortions" being readily audible to us, we have not remotely managed to make even a vague case for it. A thousand anecdotal observations doesn't make for any case. As I said, if we want this to be a problem that is worked on, we need to demonstrate it reliably and without bias. We are both unwilling and unable to do that. And that becomes our failings, not anyone else's.

Man, I am working hard to make friends in this new year, aren't I?

Excellent post!