The biggest difference I hear between digital and analog

[RogerD]

Emphasis is mine..
This , People is not an opinion: It is a fact. and
This , Bruce, will attract you the ires and wrath of the analog crowd ...

I do agree with the statement however.

Try this digital recording.....Dave Holland - Pepe Habichuela "Hands" recorded and mastered Madrid Spain

Stunning! listening to it as I type

 

[MylesBAstor]

Emphasis is mine..
This , People is not an opinion: It is a fact. and
This , Bruce, will attract you the ires and wrath of the analog crowd ...

I do agree with the statement however.

That's great but what's more important for musical engagement: macro or microdynamics (or as musicians call them dynamic accents)? I aver that it's the latter and that's one area where I feel that digital falls short. In an extreme case (as with early digital), the lack of microdynamics gives the music a boring quality and actually screws up the brain's perception of tempo.

 

[rbbert]

I certainly agree 100% with microdynamics being extremely important, but I haven't consistently found LP to be better than CD or better quality digital in that regard. I understand YMMV (and does in your case, Miles)

 

[microstrip]

Emphasis is mine..
This , People is not an opinion: It is a fact. and
This , Bruce, will attract you the ires and wrath of the analog crowd ...

I do agree with the statement however.

FrantzM,
Sorry, I have exactly the opposite view about the second conclusion.

This will attract him the love of the analog crowd who has been reading other opinions of Bruce in other threads in this forum for longtime, not just two quoted lines in a post. Having the support of the opinions of someone who shows to be a technically competent and experienced wise guy is something valuable.

 

[rockitman]

LP's are no where near the dynamic range of digital. So yes, LP's are mastered "differently".

One with little or no analog experience would think digital is the best sounding medium based on the sole facts of much higher dynamic range and S/N ratio. It's funny how those specs hold little water (to a degree) when it comes to ultimate listening pleasure/enjoyment when comparing digital to analog listening, imho.

 

[FrantzM]

Micro

I am in the mood for an honest discussion so eold like you to explain your last post. What's your position on this issue? A straightforward answer would be much appreciated.

@Myles

Come On! Man! I would like to see once in a while an admission in this forum.. Not a ferocious , desperateness, to-the-death type of intellectual posture. What in the world are macro and micro-dynamics... Really? Really and in what way CD or Digital fall short in this regard? I would agree with you if you were to tell me that early CD fell short in term of the reproduction of the upper octaves but come on Man! Dynamics has never been their problem and on the surface of it , you know it can't be a problem with CD.. be it Dynamics shading or sheer dynamics ... Simply can't be. of course I don't expect you to change course suddenly but a little admission of the merits of the medium once in a while would be an intellectually honest thing to do IMHO

 

[FrantzM]

I certainly agree 100% with microdynamics being extremely important, but I haven't consistently found LP to be better than CD or better quality digital in that regard. <snip> (and does in your case, Miles)

Same here!

 

[microstrip]

Micro

I am in the mood for an honest discussion so eold like you to explain your last post. What's your position on this issue? A straightforward answer would be much appreciated.

FrantzM,
Can you quote what you are addressing? We are addressing several issues.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Micro

I am in the mood for an honest discussion so eold like you to explain your last post. What's your position on this issue? A straightforward answer would be much appreciated.

@Myles

Come On! Man! I would like to see once in a while an admission in this forum.. Not a ferocious , desperateness, to-the-death type of intellectual posture. What in the world are macro and micro-dynamics... Really? Really and in what way CD or Digital fall short in this regard? I would agree with you if you were to tell me that early CD fell short in term of the reproduction of the upper octaves but come on Man! Dynamics has never been their problem and on the surface of it , you know it can't be a problem with CD.. be it Dynamics shading or sheer dynamics ... Simply can't be. of course I don't expect you to change course suddenly but a little admission of the merits of the medium once in a while would be an intellectually honest thing to do IMHO

Coincidentally, I just started a thread on microdynamics. I think it means very different things to different people; I don't understand at all how something could be deemed "better at microdynamics" when it has worse dynamic range, and I wanted to get the perspectives of the crowd here. Y'all come.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

One with little or no analog experience would think digital is the best sounding medium based on the sole facts of much higher dynamic range and S/N ratio. It's funny how those specs hold little water (to a degree) when it comes to ultimate listening pleasure/enjoyment when comparing digital to analog listening, imho.

This I cannot argue with, because it is one man's opinion, based on one man's experience. But any media/component/system reported to have superior microdynamics, while it clearly has inferior dynamic range begs some explanation.

Tim

 

[bblue]

I missed this thread when it started, maybe because I thought it was the previous thread with the same subject matter and the same opinions from the thread starter. My question then and now is: why does mep, the OP, think that people who prefer digital don't know what analog sounds like?? I had SOTA or near to it in analog LP playback for many years before starting to switch to digital in about 1989; it's true I wasn't very happy with digital until nearer to 2000.

I wasn't happy with 44k/16b digital from CD's until after I ripped my entire collection and quit listening to it on a CD player. A CD plays in real time and quite a variety of mechanical situations contribute to bit loss, which the player then interpolates mathematically, replacing what was missed or mis-read with an average of some sort. Ripping with a good CD Drive that supports Accurate Stream and software that uses it correctly (e.g. EAC), guarantees a bit accurate copy even if there are read errors, since the drive will continue to re-read the area until it gets it right (or reports it as unrecoverable)

Then playing the ripped tracks on the computer, digital to a good external DAC gives you results that are, in most cases, the best you're going to get.

After doing that, I finally had a good and consistent reference for what 44k-16b is capable of (and not). And it's quite consistent in comparison to 88.2k/24bit and up, also ripped from SACD or DVD-A or purchased as a digital format from the likes of HD Tracks.

What screws the pooch in any format is the current state of loudness wars, with incredibly aggressive peak limiting to make the music as loud as possible at the expense of detail and low distortion. There are a handful of mastering engineers that can apply very high quality peak limiting correctly and with good equipment used with good source that can produce a loud but sonically pleasing sound. It's still not accurate nor does it represent the original studio sound, but rather a very good compromise. Unfortunately, those recordings are in the minority (of popular music).

--Bill

 

[Soundproof]

This I cannot argue with, because it is one man's opinion, based on one man's experience. But any media/component/system reported to have superior microdynamics, while it clearly has inferior dynamic range begs some explanation.

Tim

I can argue with it. Many analog/digital comparisons make the error of comparing a later remastered CD to an audiophile approved vinyl release that hasn't been messed with.
Myth had it that the earliest CDs released were no good, and that later issues, louder and compressed, were superior, particularly when they cost audiophile grade money. So these later issues were compared to golden vinyl.

Find the right CD versions, then do the comparison, and it won't be as open and shut any longer.

 

[mep]

This I cannot argue with, because it is one man's opinion, based on one man's experience. But any media/component/system reported to have superior microdynamics, while it clearly has inferior dynamic range begs some explanation.

Tim

The problem is, it's not one man's opinion based on one man's experience. We are talking about a whole lot of men and whole lot of experience. Look no further than just this forum for example.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Micro

I am in the mood for an honest discussion so eold like you to explain your last post. What's your position on this issue? A straightforward answer would be much appreciated.

@Myles

Come On! Man! I would like to see once in a while an admission in this forum.. Not a ferocious , desperateness, to-the-death type of intellectual posture. What in the world are macro and micro-dynamics... Really? Really and in what way CD or Digital fall short in this regard? I would agree with you if you were to tell me that early CD fell short in term of the reproduction of the upper octaves but come on Man! Dynamics has never been their problem and on the surface of it , you know it can't be a problem with CD.. be it Dynamics shading or sheer dynamics ... Simply can't be. of course I don't expect you to change course suddenly but a little admission of the merits of the medium once in a while would be an intellectually honest thing to do IMHO

As I said in the post on the other thread, read Aaron Copland's How to Listen to Music. Explains "musical accents" which is what us audiophiles call micro dynamics. Oh and by the way, most box speakers can't do a very good job reproducing micro-
Dynamics. They may do other things well but micro dynamics isn't one of them. If u really want to hear micro dynamics properly rendered, you need to listen to electrostatics or ribbon speakers.

As far as digitali, it rarely as Mark mentioned achieves much more than LPs.

Always remember that a theme is, after all, just a succession of notes. Merely by changing the dynamics, that is by playing it loudly and bravely or softly and timidly, one can transform the emotional feeling of the same succession of notes. Copland

 

[DACMan]

No kidding.... I have nearly a dozen releases and re-releases of Dark Side of the Moon (all on CD),
and every one sounds slightly different, almost certainly due to different "re-mastering" on every one.

There really is no way to make a comparison in most cases.

Vinyl has lots of surface noise, quite a bit of distortion, and requires lots of equalization just to avoid overloading the cutting lathe.
Just try to put a cymbal crash at 0 dB onto a record and see what happens.

Digital audio, while it doesn't have the same type of INHERENT limitations, has lots of practical ones.
What A-to-D converter was used (they don't all sound the same)?
And DACs themselves sound very different (not only do they have different frequency response,
but the digital filters used in different DACs yield very different transient characteristics).

And, what are you going to use as a "reference source"?
Would that be the ANALOG master tape or the DIGITAL master tape...?

I propose a relatively more simple but (I think) useful test....

Take SOME source, any source....
Make a digital recording of it at some sample rate and bit depth.
Now play that digital recording back on a good DAC.
Now do an A/B test between the original and the recording.
My guess is that, with careful listening, you will hear some slight difference.
HOWEVER, if, in a blind test, you can't tell which is which, or find it difficult to decide which is BETTER....
Then you will have proven that the digital recording "hasn't degraded the quality of the original"

My personal guess is that any well-done digital recording at 24/96 will pass this test.
My guess is that no analog recording chain and record lathe ever made can pass it.

To me that closes the case over which is better...
(and, of course, we can always go up to 24/192

I can argue with it. Many analog/digital comparisons make the error of comparing a later remastered CD to an audiophile approved vinyl release that hasn't been messed with.
Myth had it that the earliest CDs released were no good, and that later issues, louder and compressed, were superior, particularly when they cost audiophile grade money. So these later issues were compared to golden vinyl.

Find the right CD versions, then do the comparison, and it won't be as open and shut any longer.

 

[opus111]

Make a digital recording of it at some sample rate and bit depth.
Now play that digital recording back on a good DAC.

Curious what your criteria are for a good DAC (and good ADC) ? Measurements/listening?

 

[Bruce B]

Take SOME source, any source....
Make a digital recording of it at some sample rate and bit depth.
Now play that digital recording back on a good DAC.
Now do an A/B test between the original and the recording.

I did this very thing for Michael Lavorgna at Audiostream.

PCM v DSD Comparison: 16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192, 64x DSD, 128x DSD

 

[Atmasphere]

Vinyl has lots of surface noise, quite a bit of distortion, and requires lots of equalization just to avoid overloading the cutting lathe.
Just try to put a cymbal crash at 0 dB onto a record and see what happens.

I have a lathe and we do just exactly that. I am guessing that you are not aware that the design of the phono playback equalizer can affect how much surface noise you experience. Also, you can't 'overload' a cutting lathe! Its just not possible. The amps usually have about 10-20 db more power than is required by the cutterhead. The cutterhead itself, while loafing, can cut grooves no arm or cartrige could possibly follow. They aer built this way so they can make the transcription without distortion, which they do quite well. What happens in playback-- that is another matter.

I propose a relatively more simple but (I think) useful test....

Take SOME source, any source....
Make a digital recording of it at some sample rate and bit depth.
Now play that digital recording back on a good DAC.
Now do an A/B test between the original and the recording.
My guess is that, with careful listening, you will hear some slight difference.
HOWEVER, if, in a blind test, you can't tell which is which, or find it difficult to decide which is BETTER....
Then you will have proven that the digital recording "hasn't degraded the quality of the original"

My personal guess is that any well-done digital recording at 24/96 will pass this test.
My guess is that no analog recording chain and record lathe ever made can pass it.

To me that closes the case over which is better...
(and, of course, we can always go up to 24/192

The guess, in this case, is incorrect. We do things like this all the time as we usually make a 24-bit digital backup of the analog tape. Invariably the client wants to hear the comparison. Also invariably, they say (to paraphrase) 'there is no comparison', although that is not actually true- the 24 bit files never compare well Clients usually comment on how much more lively and life-like the analog signal is. However I suspect a lot has to do with the gear used and the care taken in the recording. If the analog gear is not kept up well it won't perform well either.

 

[opus111]

The guess, in this case, is incorrect. We do things like this all the time as we usually make a 24-bit digital backup of the analog tape. Invariably the client wants to hear the comparison. Also invariably, they say (to paraphrase) 'there is no comparison', although that is not actually true- the 24 bit files never compare well Clients usually comment on how much more lively and life-like the analog signal is. However I suspect a lot has to do with the gear used and the care taken in the recording. If the analog gear is not kept up well it won't perform well either.

I'm curious - which (as in which brand/make of) DAC do you play back the 24bit file with in such cases?

 

[LL21]

I'm curious - which (as in which brand/make of) DAC do you play back the 24bit file with in such cases?

+1 Also very curious.