The biggest difference I hear between digital and analog

[RogerD]

Roger,

That's the million dollar question.

Tape and LP have noise floors (tape scrape an LP simply mechanical distortions from the rotation and the needle scrape)
Tape adds third distortions and the cartridge adds distortions
These things add up to sound better to many folks.

Redbook digital brick wal filters. Any digital samples less than analog.

All I can say is that analog distortions do not get in the way during playback on a stereo system and perhaps enhance the playback for many. Since plain old stereo is simply attempting to reproduce live sound, and can never do it, the distortion mechanisms provided in analog "seem" to create a more realistic rendition than digital for many. I have heard redbook cd, (reference recordings label) that obviously have been mastered to "sound" different than most standard cd's. So, IMO, digital can get me there too. But I am not sure how accurate it is, but certainly more enjoyable than many cd's.

With an audiophiles system producing atleast 10% distortion when playing back music, it must be some strange combination of things that analog adds to the mix.

Tom

The one thing that stands out to me is the quality of the ambient information presentation. Analog sounds more complete as having a boundary present. Digital sounds infinite with no boundary.....

That is the main difference that I notice. Now taking my observation into account....it's the finality or completeness that I like better. We have to remember that this is a facsimile. The 2 channel debate is a whole other topic.

 

[mep]

I still don't get where you have measurements that say that total system distortion is 10% I'm looking for some facts to back up your assertion.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And so is reality. Unlike you, I’m not anti-high end, anti-audiophile, and anti-you can make improvements to your system. I’m not the one that stood out on the edge of a cliff on a windy day and proclaimed that for a few thousand dollars I could assemble a system of ‘pro gear’ that would beat many very high-end systems. I never thought that the ‘be all-end all’ of audio was a laptop, $1800 preamp/DAC, and a pair of ‘pro speakers’ that nose dive at 60 Hz. I think it takes a lot more than that.

I think the attitude you bring to this forum would be better suited for a forum called “What’s Barely Good Enough For You Audiophile Fools is Way Better Than What I Need” than WBF. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

Happy to see you post something that you can admit is just your opinion, Mark. We have progress.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

Tim,

I apologise for my trial lawyer comment, I can see it can be taken as perjorative.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I apologise for my trial lawyer comment, I can see it can be taken as perjorative.

No problem Roger. "Trial lawyer" is only an insult until you need one. I'm just a guy looking for a bit of intellectual honesty. A guy who actually hears real instruments, in real rooms, up close and personal all the time. I actually have that real frame of reference, that original "event" you guys talk about reproducing all the time, and I disagree with you. Disagree. That's all. That doesn't mean you have to come over to my side. I like what I like. Enjoy what you like, please. I don't doubt that what you hear in vinyl or in your third or fourth generation dubs of tape is attractive, but it is neither the "truth" or more "real." It is your preference, nothing more. Yet these debates are opened up, like a pulled scab, all the time, with the analog camp's declaration of their possession of reality, truth, naturalness, musicality, the best....any word they can find that implies accurate without coming right out and saying it. And if those of us who disagree don't just sit back and take it, someone like Mark will demean us as anti-audiophile and attack our personal choices in equipment. The analog camp could use a little humility, I think.

I'm putting Mark on ignore now, but tell him I'm not anti-audiophile, I'm anti arrogant jerk.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Frank,

please expand on what you are saying about digital sound just disappearing instead of blending into the noise.

I have always noticed this too, and it is a big difference from an LP cartridge in a groove or the noise or noise floor from tape (tape at 7.5 ips anyway)

you said:
at one stage I was amazed at how he managed to achieve a digital sound where the sound floor completely disappeared below a certain volume, the music completely disappeared -- but now has progressed to where they are at level pegging

Tom

As I said, Tom: I could put on a CD, on his system at that time,with which I was very familiar on my own system; it sounded reasonable enough on his until there was a period when there should have been low level sound, pure ambience, sound decaying to silence, that type of thing. And there was absolutely nothing: quite bizarre!

Now, I've never really experienced that phenomenon on my system: my first CD machine was a high end unit for the time, and it didn't have that problem. It had other issues, so I started tweaking virtually from the word go with digital. Probably as a result of that, ongoing, mindset of mine it's never been part of my system sound.

However, as regards my friend's setup, he has a highly modified Quad CD player, that was considered quite reasonable in its raw state. What he has found is that it is very, very sensitive to vibration -- this is all part of the digital being fragile scenario -- and he has done a bit of work making sure that vibration created by the player itself, the working of the servos and motor spinning the disc, is damped or deadened; and also preventing vibration of the floor, and air perhaps, impacting the player casing.

My take on why, is that the playing mechanism shaking or vibrating to any degree means that the electricals keeping the laser in alignment with the track are working harder, quite a bit harder, meaning nastier current spikes are rippling through the unit's power supplies, ending up affecting the analogue side of the DAC. Interference disturbing CD sound manifests in various ways: the sound floor disappears, boring, grey sound, harsh, screechy violin tones, lack of "musicality" -- the list goes on and on ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Analog sounds more complete as having a boundary present. Digital sounds infinite with no boundary.....

That is the main difference that I notice. Now taking my observation into account....it's the finality or completeness that I like better. We have to remember that this is a facsimile. The 2 channel debate is a whole other topic.

Just so I understand you, Roger, that nominally sounds like a positive statement, but I suspect you're saying that you're not picking up the ambience cues properly with your digital setup. Is that correct?

Frank

 

[RogerD]

Just so I understand you, Roger, that nominally sounds like a positive statement, but I suspect you're saying that you're not picking up the ambience cues properly with your digital setup. Is that correct?

Frank

Yes Frank

Is that subjective yes,but on my system it is discernable . Now others might view my description as the glass half full rather than empty.

another way I describe it is space and time are more correct but that can be splitting hairs.

 

[fas42]

Is that subjective yes,but on my system it is discernable . Now others might view my description as the glass half full rather than empty.

another way I describe it is space and time are more correct but that can be splitting hairs.

Obviously my comments to Tom are relevant here: I literally got a shock to hear how effectively my friend's setup at one point in time completely lopped off at the knees the sound from CD. Talk about disappearing into a black hole!!

Well, of course, this is completely "wrong" sound from CD, you should be able to do much better than that. What sort of work; tuning, modding, tweaking, have you done to the digital side?

Frank

 

[mep]

Happy to see you post something that you can admit is just your opinion, Mark. We have progress.

Tim

It's always just my opinion and I clearly state that. But since you have me on ignore, it doesn't matter does it?

 

[JackD201]

Oh Boy, I sure missed lots of action while I was asleep!

Roger and Tom covered quite a bit of what I was too sleepy to type. I could try and tie things together if anybody is still interested. It's from a different perspective anyhow.

Tim and Mark, gee, I thought all this time you two were enjoying your sparring matches

 

[RogerD]

Oh Boy, I sure missed lots of action while I was asleep!

Roger and Tom covered quite a bit of what I was too sleepy to type. I could try and tie things together if anybody is still interested. It's from a different perspective anyhow.

Tim and Mark, gee, I thought all this time you two were enjoying your sparring matches

Jack please do.

 

[mep]

Oh Boy, I sure missed lots of action while I was asleep!

Roger and Tom covered quite a bit of what I was too sleepy to type. I could try and tie things together if anybody is still interested. It's from a different perspective anyhow.

Tim and Mark, gee, I thought all this time you two were enjoying your sparring matches

Somebody cried "No mas," and it wasn't me.

 

[JackD201]

Jack please do.

I'll try my best Roger. First let me say this isn't a what's better thing since it can also explain why analog sounds bad in extreme nearfield and with headphones just as it does why it sounds better to many from near/mid to mid/far field.

While I've had hundreds and hundreds of hours behind consoles the bulk of that time was focused on sound for TV and film and not music. Matching what is heard to visual pegs sets rather tight reign on artistic license. Take dialog replacement. While the voiceover talent is close miked in an isolation booth, you have to adjust the sound of the voice to match the distance of the actor from the camera. The same thing happens not just for dialog and sound effects. You have to match the ambient field to that of what's on screen. The two principal tools for this are to overlay a room tone and to set appropriate reverberation times for the size of the scene's location. Floating in Space? No room tone, zero reverb. Tom Hanks in the Vatican? Room tone lower, reverb time long. Etc.

Interestingly Mark says "seems to go on forever" and Roger says "completeness" due to having set boundaries. Tom goes and describes the distortion behavior of the mediums but this is a smaller part of it. Now we know it really doesn't go on forever. We are however looking at the manner in which the highs decay or more precisely the nature of the noise floor that they decay into. Which really boils down to the noise floor of your listening window or a noise floor determined by your system. Sounds crazy I know but let me try and explain further.

When setting the ambient sound field for film, the room tone is set to dominate or override the room tone of your own room. It, in Roger's words, sets the boundaries for the location of the events. As such the decays sound more natural "go on forever" because it dives into a noise floor that is consistent. When watching a movie with headphones the hash of the room tone can be quite unpleasant and fatiguing without one knowing that there really is this noise put there on purpose. We filter out this type of noise anyway 24/7 from the day we were born to the day we die. When it goes missing however, it's a creepy unnatural feeling. There is such a thing as too quiet, we all know that.

Interestingly enough, groove noise and groove echo as well as tape hiss are very, very similar to room tone. Enough to set a self contained set of boundaries, fill in dead gaps in space. Attempts to actually minimize groove noise like 80's Japanese Press JVC LPs and the use of ever smaller stylus profiles (think Clearaudio cartss up to about 2 years ago) have been criticized as sounding clinical which actually should be understood as not too detailed but rather "too clean" or "too precise". One can never have too much detail after all, it just has to be natural sounding detail because in real life we aren't in anechoic chambers.

So I've put myself in a pickle. I've just said that Analog adds stuff that makes it sound better. Yes I did. It can be argued that because of this, analog is not accurate. Before the war begins just let me remind the digital camp about what happens inside our DACs. Noise is added on purpose too. So the argument goes both ways. One thing for sure is, noise done right is not a bad thing. Not bad at all.

Noise is your friend

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Jack I've said more than once, set the needle down in the groove...that second before the music begins? It sounds a lot like an empty room. There are your extra ambient cues. And while I get your point about dither, it sure doesn't have the same effect. I guess the question is why don't I, and many other people who are perfectly happy with digital, need that extra ambience added by the source? I know the most zealous analog true believers believe we do need analog's special goodness, we just don't know what we're missing. But they're wrong. I've heard it. I can go and listen to it again tomorrow night if I like. Actually, I've got a few good needledrops here, I can go listen to it right now if I like. But I don't. I really don't like it. Honest. Those ambient cues just sound like a higher noise floor to me. YMMV.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I wouldn't call it ambient cues since those reside in the notes and their recorded reflections. It's the media noise floor resembling ambient space. While I could edit audio files hours on end on headphones. Editing room tone files on cans is unbearable to me as is listening to LPs on cans. Editing on monitors near field was just a little bit less hideous so, given your stated listening habits, I can see where you are coming from.

Dither or noise shaping do not have the same effect....... usually. There are however players that have that saturated space effect. Some due to the algorithms used and some from the output stage design choices.

 

[RogerD]

I'll try my best Roger. First let me say this isn't a what's better thing since it can also explain why analog sounds bad in extreme nearfield and with headphones just as it does why it sounds better to many from near/mid to mid/far field.

While I've had hundreds and hundreds of hours behind consoles the bulk of that time was focused on sound for TV and film and not music. Matching what is heard to visual pegs sets rather tight reign on artistic license. Take dialog replacement. While the voiceover talent is close miked in an isolation booth, you have to adjust the sound of the voice to match the distance of the actor from the camera. The same thing happens not just for dialog and sound effects. You have to match the ambient field to that of what's on screen. The two principal tools for this are to overlay a room tone and to set appropriate reverberation times for the size of the scene's location. Floating in Space? No room tone, zero reverb. Tom Hanks in the Vatican? Room tone lower, reverb time long. Etc.

Interestingly Mark says "seems to go on forever" and Roger says "completeness" due to having set boundaries. Tom goes and describes the distortion behavior of the mediums but this is a smaller part of it. Now we know it really doesn't go on forever. We are however looking at the manner in which the highs decay or more precisely the nature of the noise floor that they decay into. Which really boils down to the noise floor of your listening window or a noise floor determined by your system. Sounds crazy I know but let me try and explain further.

When setting the ambient sound field for film, the room tone is set to dominate or override the room tone of your own room. It, in Roger's words, sets the boundaries for the location of the events. As such the decays sound more natural "go on forever" because it dives into a noise floor that is consistent. When watching a movie with headphones the hash of the room tone can be quite unpleasant and fatiguing without one knowing that there really is this noise put there on purpose. We filter out this type of noise anyway 24/7 from the day we were born to the day we die. When it goes missing however, it's a creepy unnatural feeling. There is such a thing as too quiet, we all know that.

Interestingly enough, groove noise and groove echo as well as tape hiss are very, very similar to room tone. Enough to set a self contained set of boundaries, fill in dead gaps in space. Attempts to actually minimize groove noise like 80's Japanese Press JVC LPs and the use of ever smaller stylus profiles (think Clearaudio cartss up to about 2 years ago) have been criticized as sounding clinical which actually should be understood as not too detailed but rather "too clean" or "too precise". One can never have too much detail after all, it just has to be natural sounding detail because in real life we aren't in anechoic chambers.

So I've put myself in a pickle. I've just said that Analog adds stuff that makes it sound better. Yes I did. It can be argued that because of this, analog is not accurate. Before the war begins just let me remind the digital camp about what happens inside our DACs. Noise is added on purpose too. So the argument goes both ways. One thing for sure is, noise done right is not a bad thing. Not bad at all.

Noise is your friend

Thanks Jack for the fine explanation. Ah the infamous system noise floor! A term that is surely misunderstood. I am not sure I fully comprehend what it all entails. But one thing I can vouch for regardless of the noise that is inherent in the recording,the more absent the system noise level is the more ambient information will be heard. For me the more ambient info revealed the greater the illusion is.

I will say the quality of the recording be it digital or analog is dependent on the system noise floor of the recording engineer's equipment and setup.

So all I can say if you want to improve your system sound, lower that system noise.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are however players that have that saturated space effect.

You mean that noise? FWIW, the current tape craze confuses me a bit because, while it does have it's share of noise, it's very different, and doesn't sound like a big, empty room the way surface noise on an LP does.

I wonder...if you have tinnitus, does digital sound analog?

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Many interesting responses to this thread. Not sure I understand the value of the discussion, except to point out where some of the members believe the better reproduction is to be found....which is in their humble opinion ( I hope)
I tend to fall on the analog side of the argument, however, I have heard excellent digital as well, which IMO has improved immensely since the early 2000's ...IMHO.

But the real question is this......who really cares IF one prefers analog or digital if whatever one is listening to fulfills our expectations and allows us to enjoy the music. All else is simply irrelevant, again IMHO...

 

[RogerD]

Many interesting responses to this thread. Not sure I understand the value of the discussion, except to point out where some of the members believe the better reproduction is to be found....which is in their humble opinion ( I hope)
I tend to fall on the analog side of the argument, however, I have heard excellent digital as well, which IMO has improved immensely since the early 2000's ...IMHO.

But the real question is this......who really cares IF one prefers analog or digital if whatever one is listening to fulfills our expectations and allows us to enjoy the music. All else is simply irrelevant, again IMHO...

You know Davey you make a good point,because it is almost all system dependent and source quality dependent on the strength of the illusion presented. If it was possible to reproduce a Aeolian Skinner organ so the sound literally soared beyond the boundary walls of the listening room and just like sitting in the church there was no such thing as a sweet spot just cocooned in the sound energy produced, and the kicker is that the format is digital. The illusion has become real just the scale has changed.