The State Of Analog
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
first; i reject the notion that there is really two sides here, that one either loves analog or loves digital. i strongly enjoy/love both. i see this whole subject as a matter of experience. have you really been exposed to the very best that analog can offer enough times and along with high level digital to have a strong feel for it? those that i know which have been exposed to both share my viewpoint pretty much down the line.
the next issue is exactly how far along the optimization pathway are PCM and DSD? in other words; are improvements in refinement of DAC's, and power supplies, and transports, and storage media going to likely move the performance needle from where they are at right now? since there are no alternate digital formats on the horizon anyone who reasonably expects digital performance improvements must find it in this issue. i've been trying to stay at the leading edge of digital playback since the late 90's....starting with a Linn CD-12 and Marantz SA-1....which at the time were the best digital players. i've upgraded three or four times over the last 12 years or so and my Playback Designs continues to have software upgrades as time goes by in an attempt to advance digital performance. it's damn good...amazingly good.
but....
if we were to bring back the Linn and the Marantz and compare them to the Playbacks it would not be night and day; it's still baby steps....because digital only gives you so much information to work with. based on the last 11-12 years of performance improvements further refinements of digital is not going to be where digital gets to the level of analog in the foreseeable future.
if you listen to the varoius levels of analog performance there are huge steps up in performance as more and better design and technology are applied; it seems that the upper limit of analog performace has not been reached or maybe even approached.
an Lp or tape have considerable advantages in data. as hardware is improved, more and more information gets uncovered in analog software.
anyway; if we can discuss digital without throwing 'silly' comments around (about how it compares to analog) that are based in lack of exposure to SOTA analog we can avoid this whole subject and enjoy both analog and digital. and that's my perspective.
Last edited:
Mike-I think you are on record on this thread as appearing upset that someone would state as fact that digital is superior to analog and you took great execption to that. I think that implies that you have a preference for one over the other-I know I do. And no, I don't love both formats-I tolerate digital. And no, I have not been exposed to the very best that analog can offer nor have I heard the best that digital has to offer-you nailed me there. My humble system is a matter of record and I will put it on this forum so all can ridicule it. Maybe that means that I am not qualified to render any judgements on how things sound because my system is not capable of resolving information very well. Either I am being overly sensitive or it has gotten to the point that you take exception to anything I say. I am going to go listen to some music now on my far less than SOTA system and try and relax and imagine that I am really enjoying what I am hearing.
Last edited:
Mark,
i was never upset about anything; and if i crossed the line from opinion to preaching or soap box spouting then i apologize. this is my hobby and i have strongly determined and held perspectives; but it's just fun for me. the whole idea of better or best, or most complete or most accurate, or most real presumes state of the art levels of performance......which ideally includes both state of the art software and hardware. while ideally the best gear will tell you the most; the best software will get you most of the way there.....which you certainly have on the analog side of things as well as very good analog hardware.
my only dig at you (and Steve) had to do with disagreement with my perspective without making a case. tell me i'm wrong, no probem.....but make a case for why you feel that way at least a little bit. which launched me into my post asking for evidence of how digital might get better. my 'agnst' had nothing to do with anyone's gear, only the lack of support for your disagreement.
there is no problem with someone having a different opinion without even owning a system or even listening; as long as they are prepared to defend their perspective with some sort of logic including why their perspective is valid. obviously; there is not requirement for any level of support for any position one takes, but then be ready to be challenged.
anyway, sorry if my bluster went too far. i'll try to muzzel myself better in the future.
i have heard the Memory Player in shows a number of times; but never in my room. honestly; i was not particularly impressed with what i heard from the Memory Player as when my reference disc was loaded into the Memory Player i preferred the actual disc playing to the Memory Player's playback. that has happened twice. not that the Memory Player did not sound fine to me; just that i did not percieve any benefit in my specific experience.
Wow...didn't see that! Not only was he into analog but tubes also! What a great obit!
I have no explanation but because I was using digitial room correction at the time, the LP was converted to digital and back to analog and STILL sounded better !!
I saw this interest post over on Audiogon (partially reproduced here):
"One advantage vinyl has over digital is the signal remains analog. Did anyone see the movie "The Fly"? Jeff Goldbloom cuts a steak in half and sends half of the steak through his invention where the steak is taken apart and reassembled in another location. After cooking both pieces of steak it became very obvious the steak that was taken apart and reassembled did not taste quite right. Could this be the problem with some CD players?" by Rrog on Audiogon on 7-18-10
Just posting it for amusement...Not trying to promote its technical content but I think it presents what many people say in a funny, clear, albeit populist way.
"One advantage vinyl has over digital is the signal remains analog. Did anyone see the movie "The Fly"? Jeff Goldbloom cuts a steak in half and sends half of the steak through his invention where the steak is taken apart and reassembled in another location. After cooking both pieces of steak it became very obvious the steak that was taken apart and reassembled did not taste quite right. Could this be the problem with some CD players?" by Rrog on Audiogon on 7-18-10
Just posting it for amusement...Not trying to promote its technical content but I think it presents what many people say in a funny, clear, albeit populist way.
I love vinyl and listen at least an hour a day. But, I will admit that 2496 files give me that same smoothness I love about vinyl. I just did a needle drop for a friend yesterday of Al Jurreau and Step by Step at 2496 and at 1696 and could tell no difference, but they sounded so good I could not find anything to complain about with digital at that sample rate.
I am not about to waste time transferring my vinyl into my computer as many are doing because 1.) they can; 2.) HD space is crazy cheap, but I just don't want to waste the time to do it. I can just spin vinyl anytime I want and hear the real thing.
I love 2496. I also love a decent TT rig. Back to the future!
I am not about to waste time transferring my vinyl into my computer as many are doing because 1.) they can; 2.) HD space is crazy cheap, but I just don't want to waste the time to do it. I can just spin vinyl anytime I want and hear the real thing.
I love 2496. I also love a decent TT rig. Back to the future!
In a world in which we don't quite understand the difference between digital audio and a steak knife, yes.
P
Have any of you guys seen a sushi robot? Here in Hawaii (functionally suburban Tokyo) there are quite a few. Of course no "real" sushi chef uses them, but the chain sushi places have them. And, if you're wondering, the sushi robot stuff tastes poorly.
No, I'm not familiar with the sushi robot, but I would assume that the most it can do is cut and roll the ingredients, yes? And if it doesn't choose the ingredients, or determine the relative quantities of them, and if there is no cooking or seasoning involved (it is sushi, yes?), and the sushi robot is only performing the mechanical processes involved in turning the cooked rice, fish, seaweed and vegetables into rolls then cutting them into small bite-sized pieces (or is that sashimi?), then I could pretty safely conclude, without having ever heard of a sushi robot before today, that if the sushi that comes from such a process tastes "poorly," either the robot is not clean or something outside of the robot's control is affecting the flavor.
I definitely get the analogy to digital audio, though.
P
I'm curious about the perspective here, or 'things in perspective'.
I use digital, not because I particularly think it is superior, or that vinyl is inferior, it's just the path in the road I happened to take, for better or worse. (well, like a few I guess I straddled the great divide, had a few hundred LPs but fell out of audio due to life factors, ended up selling the LPs at one stage...a lot of you know the story...)
First off, let's go to basics. A person can only form a preference IF he has been exposed to both. So on that front, I'm curious, when someone says 'I can't abide digital for more than five minutes', would that be true in an ultimate sense if he had never heard vinyl?? (genuine question...., for example would that person NOT be an audiophile if he was magically born say one hundred years from now and no vinyl existed and say digital was at the current state?) In other words, is his 'anti digital stance' an intrinsic thing, that digital truly 'hurts his ears and is genuinely unlistenable', or is it simply that he vastly prefers vinyl after hearing both?
I do get the idea that this forum is kind of the creme de la creme, although there are a scattering of more modest systems here, equally there seems to be the real enthusiasts if you will. Price no object kind of stuff. (it's hard to avoid generalities eh)
I love my system and I love my music, but even tho to the average joe on the street I have spent ridiculous amounts of money on my system, it is just a drop in the bucket of most of the main protagonists in this thread (and somehow even if I had the disposable I doubt I'd spend more). So it's 'what are we talking here??'
Sure, if you have the means and the desire, you CAN spend 'x' amount of dollars for that 0.5%, and it would be worth it to you.
So when the discussion talks about vinyl 'smoking' digital, what sort of levels are we talking?? (eg, 'budget TT will kill even the best digital' or 'digital beats vinyl until we hit point 'x' etc etc)
And curious too, a lot of you talk about R2R being even better than anything, that would be even more esoteric would it not?? Both the hardware and the software??
Hope that made sense, just trying to get it into perspective, or at least find out your perspective.
Boiling it down to a basic question (have NO agenda here, my path is set and not willing to spend money on an entirely different set of hardware and software) is it true (or not true) that to 'exceed' digital you need to spend more?? In your opinion of course.
Funny how often the discussion comes down to the quality of the recording no matter the format.
Maybe THAT is the biggest hurdle in high end audio? (and something we, apart from petitions, have no control over)
I use digital, not because I particularly think it is superior, or that vinyl is inferior, it's just the path in the road I happened to take, for better or worse. (well, like a few I guess I straddled the great divide, had a few hundred LPs but fell out of audio due to life factors, ended up selling the LPs at one stage...a lot of you know the story...)
First off, let's go to basics. A person can only form a preference IF he has been exposed to both. So on that front, I'm curious, when someone says 'I can't abide digital for more than five minutes', would that be true in an ultimate sense if he had never heard vinyl?? (genuine question...., for example would that person NOT be an audiophile if he was magically born say one hundred years from now and no vinyl existed and say digital was at the current state?) In other words, is his 'anti digital stance' an intrinsic thing, that digital truly 'hurts his ears and is genuinely unlistenable', or is it simply that he vastly prefers vinyl after hearing both?
I do get the idea that this forum is kind of the creme de la creme, although there are a scattering of more modest systems here, equally there seems to be the real enthusiasts if you will. Price no object kind of stuff. (it's hard to avoid generalities eh)
I love my system and I love my music, but even tho to the average joe on the street I have spent ridiculous amounts of money on my system, it is just a drop in the bucket of most of the main protagonists in this thread (and somehow even if I had the disposable I doubt I'd spend more). So it's 'what are we talking here??'
Sure, if you have the means and the desire, you CAN spend 'x' amount of dollars for that 0.5%, and it would be worth it to you.
So when the discussion talks about vinyl 'smoking' digital, what sort of levels are we talking?? (eg, 'budget TT will kill even the best digital' or 'digital beats vinyl until we hit point 'x' etc etc)
And curious too, a lot of you talk about R2R being even better than anything, that would be even more esoteric would it not?? Both the hardware and the software??
Hope that made sense, just trying to get it into perspective, or at least find out your perspective.
Boiling it down to a basic question (have NO agenda here, my path is set and not willing to spend money on an entirely different set of hardware and software) is it true (or not true) that to 'exceed' digital you need to spend more?? In your opinion of course.
Funny how often the discussion comes down to the quality of the recording no matter the format.
Maybe THAT is the biggest hurdle in high end audio? (and something we, apart from petitions, have no control over)
I find it interesting that even here, on the Digital forum, we find multiple threads in which people are arguing the superiority of vinyl. Who, I wonder, are they trying to convince?
And no, a willingness to spend more money is no guarantee that you will achieve better fidelity, not even in the "diminishing returns." In appropriately-sized rooms, I've heard good digital files, small active monitors and well-integrated subs reveal more of the recording, more faithfully, than most of the many high-end systems I've heard (Theoretically, I would argue any vinyl system, but I haven't heard them all, and that seems to be the local litmus test). Yes, recording quality may be the biggest remaining audio hurdle (transducers are up there too), and we may not always like what is revealed, but revelation of the recording is all we've got. A playback system cannot leap backwards, past the recording, and deliver a more "natural" representation of the instruments and voices, and any attempt to do so is simply adding color, tone. Your may think it is more pleasant, and it may be "high-end," but it is certainly not higher fidelity. And that added tone that you think makes flawed recordings more pleasant, will paint the best recordings with the same brush. You may as well go to the art museum wearing rose-colored glasses because they tone down the glare of the Van Goghs, and just accept what they do to the Rembrandts.
No control? I'm not so sure. The record industry produces vinyl and it still produces a few SACDs with substantially better mastering than the loud, bright, obnoxious sound that seems to be the norm for pop/rock recordings today. They do this for the only reason any publicly-traded company does anything: There is a market for it. If that market, audiophiles, stopped believing in magic, these same record companies might find a market for audiophile editions of cds and digital files meant not to be loud, but good. Some non-audiophiles might hear them, and hear the difference. The market might grow. Recorded music might get better. That would be real progress.
P
When it comes to making good recordings, it's not that we lack the method. We lack the inclination. RCA Living Stereo was making great records back in the fifties. We had to start all over when digital was rammed down our throat. Digital was perfect forever. There was no need to develop it. But for the pressure form the high end it would have remained it the dark ages. Digital got better because of the presence of vinyl. Despite your argument the absence of vinyl would cause the digital world to once again rest on their laurels. As modest as those laurels are. As I have stated before digital has already lost an unopposed election. It enjoys its current position solely because of its monopolistic stranglehold on the market.
I would say that I simply disagree, but it's a bit more than that. Digital recording and reproduction improved steadily all through the great decline and minor resurrection of vinyl. It did not need the competition of the old medium for dedicated artists and engineers to make the most of it. The current "problem" with playback media, whether it was recorded digitally or on analog tape, the loudness wars, is driven by current trends, escalated by business interests, and is only related to the vinyl/cd debate to the extent that vinyl, clearly being an audiophile/hobbyist medium is often mastered separately, and without the compression and eq that has become common in popular music.
P
