Great article on "Analogue Warmth"

[Johnny Vinyl]

Nobody on this thread has heard a pure DSD DAC that actually measures great, yet still sounds as smooth as silk. It's 2016 now, so if these guys are using 2015 and prior technology as a digital reference, they shouldn't even be participating in this discussion.

Good luck talking to yourself then! And how do you suggest people learn from your apparent vast amount of knowledge without participation?

 

[Blizzard]

Blizzard, that's a little presumptuous (and insulting BTW) to say that nobody on this forum basically has or has heard what you have. What you have to say my be your opinion but it is just that.....YOUR opinion. Please stop shoving down people's throats. It's a big turnoff, truth be told.

Tom

I never said anything about what I have in particular. There's going to be a whole pile of new DAC's introduced in 2016. Who has heard them?

I'll say once again, people are comparing yesterday's digital to analog. Yesterday's over now.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I hope the tone of replies will remain serene and courteous and that the following posts abide to this wish:

I don't mind someone preferring analog to digital and saying it. I do have a problem with the underlying condescencion that the reason I prefer digital is that I haven't heard the best in analog. or SOTA as it is called sometimes. This reminds of a discussion we had about "natural".
I would venture that there aren't 3 systems here with the exact same components. Uber systems in here are rarely similar: To take 3 that comes to mind: Steve's system (Tube , DHT) is very different from MikeL (SS) or from Jackd201 (Tubes, Hybrid) or from any other uber system you care to mention on the WBF... All those persons could simply swap for the "best" if there was a clear "better". They don't or at least not to my knowledge... So they prefer what they have to what the others have .. It is accepted and everybody's at ease with this notion...

But when it comes to digital vs analog, it seems very difficult to accept the notion of preference ...since analog is clearly superior.. Judged by whom? On what basis? What does make of that a consensus? That several people say so? What is unfortunate is that the protocols that would remove many of the biases are vehemently and vociferously rejected. So what's left? The weight of opinions? of opinions ? Really?
By all objective criteria digital is superior. The very existence of this forum is proof of what digital has brought to the world of communications. There is no way but digital means to analyze and derive knowledge of the universe. Yet some want to believe the simple audio range cannot be completely replicated by digital means? When most of us will regularly fail the simple test of discerning the nature of the source once knowledge is removed.
Let's not forget the often repeated argument about emotional" connection.. is that a real proof? Yesterday I was watching a movie over a Vizio 65 inches I have at my Office and started crying on a guita solo.. The sound had to be mp3 and the reproduction was through the incredibly great speakers of the Viso 65 inches... The kids with the car with the 30-inch subwoofer that shakes you whole house when he drives by the street has also an emotional attachment to that reproduction? Is it in your opinions better? Would you take his emotional involvement as proof of superiority? And make no mistake most of our systems cannot replicate his kind of bass .. Believe it. These kids are serious on their bass and the capabilities of some of those cars in the bass is spectacular. But bty several subjective criteria as observed by certain members here they prefer analog.. That's ok too.. The objective metrics however are non existent. That is also ok... but ..

I do not have any problem that one persons prefers a reproduction over another. Nor that the person arrived at his/her conclusions by whatever protocols he/she chooses. Just do not make of it an absolute.

 

[DaveyF]

I never said anything about what I have in particular. There's going to be a whole pile of new DAC's introduced in 2016. Who has heard them?

I'll say once again, people are comparing yesterday's digital to analog. Yesterday's over now.

Ok, that makes perfect sense, not!

What makes you so sure that the DAC's introduced in 2016 will be automatically superior to all of the DAC's introduced in 2015...or for that matter prior years. Have you actually heard the MSB Select DAC, the new DCS DAC's? Since I have heard the MSB, which is touted as being among the best available....maybe even the best, I can tell you it does not approach the sound of average vinyl, never mind great vinyl. There is still a 'digital sheen' ( What's that???...well if you have actually listened to great vinyl or tape and done a comparison, you would immediately know of what I talk), that is evident with the best DAC's I have heard, including the MSB and the Berkeley Reference....
Ed Meitner is bringing out a new DAC, I will be listening to this in the next few weeks, will it be even close to the best vinyl, we shall see. ( Yes, I am open to the possibility, BUT like I said, compared to tape and the best vinyl, it has a lot of ground to cover).....All, IMHO.

 

[esldude]

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.

So when someone has heard both and agrees with you they are a great listener. If they have heard both and disagree they haven't heard a good analog setup.

 

[steve williams]

So when someone has heard both and agrees with you they are a great listener. If they have heard both and disagree they haven't heard a good analog setup.

don't read too much between the lines. Perhaps I should have said that Ked is an educated and knowledgeable listener as he has travelled all over the world to listen to great systems as well as hearing live music several times per week and out of that he prefers analog. Have I made my point clear? Please don't give me the "because they agree with me" argument. Everything I have stated has all been in MHO. I admire Ked's zeal

 

[Blizzard]

Ok, that makes perfect sense, not!

What makes you so sure that the DAC's introduced in 2016 will be automatically superior to all of the DAC's introduced in 2015...or for that matter prior years. Have you actually heard the MSB Select DAC, the new DCS DAC's? Since I have heard the MSB, which is touted as being among the best available....maybe even the best, I can tell you it does not approach the sound of average vinyl, never mind great vinyl. There is still a 'digital sheen' ( What's that???...well if you have actually listened to great vinyl or tape and done a comparison, you would immediately know of what I talk), that is evident with the best DAC's I have heard, including the MSB and the Berkeley Reference....
Ed Meitner is bringing out a new DAC, I will be listening to this in the next few weeks, will it be even close to the best vinyl, we shall see. ( Yes, I am open to the possibility, BUT like I said, compared to tape and the best vinyl, it has a lot of ground to cover).....All, IMHO.

Digital these days is very fast moving. There's going to be new products released this year that are far superior than 2015's products. And I'm not just talking about the best of the best, I'm talking about at lower price levels as well.

 

[steve williams]

Digital these days is very fast moving. There's going to be new products released this year that are far superior than 2015's products. And I'm not just talking about the best of the best, I'm talking about at lower price levels as well.

Mike

I am betting that you are correct as that is the nature of the industry.

 

[Blizzard]

Mike

I am betting that you are correct as that is the nature of the industry.

Yes and even more so than last year. Outside the forum the only people I ever have audio discussions with are engineers who develop cutting edge products. By the time we see things appear on the market, they are already working on stuff that will be released 2-3 years down the road. I find the opinions these guys have is far different than most of the opinions I'm seeing around here. Is this because these engineers don't know what's going on?

 

[esldude]

Blizzard, that's a little presumptuous (and insulting BTW) to say that nobody on this forum basically has or has heard what you have. What you have to say my be your opinion but it is just that.....YOUR opinion. Please stop shoving down people's throats. It's a big turnoff, truth be told.

Tom

Truth be I find it a turn off. I also see no difference from numerous posters insisting repeatedly that if I have heard digital and analog I could only think digital better because I haven't heard SOTA analog they have. Where is their warning?

 

[esldude]

Just consider that if the best digital neither adds or subtracts, it may be that for the best sound from stereo, many may desire the processes added by the vinyl process to the sound. Perfect stereo in digital may not sound best UNLESS the recording and mastering engineers use some better tricks.

Blizzard this is not against you in any way, just something to consider from left field for you.

This goes back to my personal tests that showed that digital captured everything my phono put out, and therefore also captured vinyls pleasing process distortions as well, which speaks very well of digital, even at 24/96 from my perspective.

Maybe that's how you know if your analog is SOTA. If you can capture the sound fully at 24/96, then it is not SOTA. If that's the case, then I have not heard SOTA analog.

 

[PeterA]

I would submit, based off of what I read from a guy who was in the recording room and I read this years ago,
that a digital recording of an analog tape sounds more like the analog tape than an LP made from the analog tape.

It just stands to reason it would be true, as the LP version adds its processes to the sound, and in fact, he said that the LP version "sounded" better than the digital version.

So, the digital version sounded more like the analog tape but the LP sounded better.

It is the key to this thing.

The enhancements of the LP system simply can sound better, not necessarily more accurate to the tape, just better.

Fascinating. Less accurate but better sound. So the LP sounds better than the digital but the digital sounded more accurate to the tape. I wonder how he would describe the sound of the LP versus the sound of the analog tape with the influence of the processes added to the LP.

This may be the key, as you write it. The digital guys argue that digital is truer fidelity to the source. The analog guys argue that they prefer the sound of vinyl. Perhaps this is why we are talking past each other.

 

[Blizzard]

Truth be I find it a turn off. I also see no difference from numerous posters insisting repeatedly that if I have heard digital and analog I could only think digital better because I haven't heard SOTA analog they have. Where is their warning?

Some guys are just worried about the resale value of their analog/tube gear once the next generation of digital/class D is unveiled. Which is understandable

 

[PeterA]

I think the real problem on this thread is, nobody participating has ever heard the best digital before.

This is an inaccurate statement. Nobody means no one. You are participating and you have heard the best digital available, so your statement is untrue.

 

[treitz3]

Truth be I find it a turn off. I also see no difference from numerous posters insisting repeatedly that if I have heard digital and analog I could only think digital better because I haven't heard SOTA analog they have. Where is their warning?

There was no warning esldude. Just another opinion (this thread is full of them) that was based on my observations. Things stated as an absolute create heated arguments. Certain members keep stating things as an absolute when in fact, they have no clue as to what people on this forum have or have not heard. That's not an opinion, that is a fact. As a member, I feel as if all of my observations should just be thrown out of the window because I don't have the latest and greatest, up to 2016 standards and therefore my opinion, observations and whatnot do not count.

I do have an opinion but on this thread, as a member, I choose not to express them only to (predictably) be told....ah, never mind. I think I'll slide out now. Not worth my time. Y'all have fun.

Tom

 

[Blizzard]

This is an inaccurate statement. Nobody means no one. You are participating and you have heard the best digital available, so your statement is untrue.

I've never claimed to have heard the best digital available. I'm just saying the best digital available hasn't hit the market yet. And it's far better than all the guys on here who are slamming digital have ever heard. As far as tube amps or record players go, I don't think we will see anything game changing released in 2016.

 

[esldude]

Fascinating. Less accurate but better sound. So the LP sounds better than the digital but the digital sounded more accurate to the tape. I wonder how he would describe the sound of the LP versus the sound of the analog tape with the influence of the processes added to the LP.

This may be the key, as you write it. The digital guys argue that digital is truer fidelity to the source. The analog guys argue that they prefer the sound of vinyl. Perhaps this is why we are talking past each other.

Lots of pro digital folks accept this as a given. It's been the analog people confusing their preferences as superior fidelity which make this an ongoing issue.

 

[Argonaut]

I am firmly 'On The Fence' until quad DSD is available in Rectal Suppository Format.

 

[esldude]

I am firmly 'On The Fence' until quad DSD is available in Rectal Suppository format.

That would make for a very intimate connection to music unlike any other.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I am firmly 'On The Fence' until quad DSD is available in Rectal Suppository format.

Lol. Potd to Roger.