WBF Poll: Which Sounds Better, Digital or Analog?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Michael Fremer measures every turntable he reviews, and Art Dudley has some measurements in the latest Stereophile. Many modern 'tables measure as badly as that Linn (including the one Art reviews in the latest issue); AFAIK every table has significant (to my ears) speed variation. Wow of 0.1% is audible depending on program material, and pitch inaccuracy of 0.1-0.2% (very common even on the most expensive 'tables) is audible to those who care (like me). However, there is no doubt that many listeners, including many audiophiles, don't seem to be bothered by this if they even notice it.
No objective data necessary...after all, objective data fails to quantify what sounds best. Objective data may be more helpful for digital in terms of its ability to approximate the analog source.
heroic, well perhaps ... but from an engineering point of view, many leave me head-scratching, seemingly trading one problem for another; although often the marketing "spin" communicates only the positive angle. At TAVES, years ago, during one rare precious quiet moment, I had this very discussion with Oracle's chief designer Jacques Riendeau; prompted by my interest and concerns regarding a (then) recent Oracle upgrade. It was a memorable discussion, he didn't deflect the negatives, communicating his methodology, design & testing, all their associated pro's & con's, very well.
I though it a very beautiful image (much like it sounds) ... I wished all my recordings looked like that.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
So that we are firmly grounded here, this is a random measurement of a turntable (Linn Sondek LP12) from stereophile: http://www.stereophile.com/content/linn-sondek-lp12-turntable-lingo-power-supply-measurements
The test tone on the LP was 1.003 KHz test tone. What should have come out in the spectrum analyzer output above, should have been a single, sharp, vertical line at that frequency and absolutely nothing else. What came out is something else:
1. The tone is in there alright in the middle but it has widened substantially. That wide "skirt" is due to random speed modulation. It is ton of variations but its frequency is limited to +- 50 Hz.
2. The shoulders are broad even if we just go down 10 db from the peak. The variations have create huge amplitude of random low frequency distortions. We are talking orders of magnitude more than we see in digital system jitter.
3. We then have symmetrical spikes on each side of the tone. That indicates speed variations that have fairly precise causes that occur at X/second. They are sudden jumps in speed and therefor create distortion spikes at those exact frequencies. These rise up to -60 dB FS.
4. Going way past the center frequency, the signal never gets clean, establishing a base level of distortion+noise that is 70 db FS below input.
What this says is that this analog system was not remotely capable of creating a sine wave that was fed to it. This again invalidates those made up graphs of analog simply reproducing what is given to it as in the Counterpoint graph. It can't do that or even come within shouting distance.
By any objective measure, these are horrible, horrible measurements.
Thankfully the story does not end there. If we look at the distortions that MP3 creates, they too look horrific (not on sine waves but complex content). But we don't hear them easily because the codec attempts to create distortions that are masked. Same is happening here. The above graph has very narrow scale. So a lot of those distortions get overshadowed by the main tone. Not all though. Some are coming through and may be what people like to hear.
I know if you love analog you are rolling your eyes over this. That's fine. I just ask that we don't try to all of a sudden sound technical and pretend to explain how the technologies work when we don't have a grasp of either. Just stay in preference domain and we are good. Don't try to get technical.
This is assuming the lathe had a variation of 0%, otherwise you need to add the cumulative effect of the source as well.
And the analog tape master as well, although as you know they are cumulative but not strictly additive. Think about what the Plangent Process can do in some cases to nearly eliminate speed variations.
I have no doubt that digital beats analog by the numbers, and not by a small margin either. After all, to name some different numbers too, vinyl has an effective dynamic range of just 65-70 dB and CD one of 96 dB (at the least; with dithering it's more, I've heard), and digital hi-rez even more. Yet an LP can sound just as dynamic as a CD. Go figure.
In any case, while digital may still leave analog in the dust as far as pure numbers, the real-life resolution of instrumental timbre on analog beats by a mile the best digital that I have heard so far (admittedly, I haven't heard the DACs yet that are considered the very best -- I did however hear the Playback Designs MPD-5). I just came home from a great evening with Peter A., which included a good dinner and a nice boat ride around the town where he lives and its islands (including a gorgeous sunset), next to listening to his excellent system, and by some tweaking of the tone arm settings he just gave his turntable set-up a significant boost of resolution over the impressive amount that had already been there. The inner texture of the sound of a string section, of solo violin or of a jazz quartet on his system is just phenomenal, among the best I have ever heard, and that resolution just kills digital. All the digital I have heard does not come close.
Says this digital-only guy (see my signature) who has no personal interest whatsoever in hyping analog, but is just honest with himself about what he hears.
And no, assessments of the resolution of timbral texture are NOT a matter of preference or taste. When you have a good deal of experience with unamplified live music like I do (and Peter A. does as well), the superiority of analog is obvious. It's just comparing the reproduction through a system with the real thing. Analog comes much closer.
***
And by the way, to those who still think that analog may be nice sounding but is just hopelessly colored, and that CD or high-res digital is much more 'accurate': you have no clue.
You have not heard great LP playback. Hint: for truly great LP playback you have to spend much more than 5 grand, and you have to set up the turntable properly, which is no easy task. Ask Peter A..
Last edited:
fine ... perhaps a more telling question ... do you believe that the exact same system/tracks rec'd properly to digital won't offer the EXACT same fidelity?
If it does, then I suppose digital recording could be considered perfect, as in a perfect recording/copy of the original signal. If that is now the case, then digital technology would no longer need to improve. But I think we can all agree that digital technology is continuing to improve, which implies that it can still improve further.
So I would ask TBone this: Is digital technology finished improving, or does it have further to go?
I know analog has much further to go.
I was surfing the WWW (World Wide Web), and there are few bands who record an album on tape (R-2-R) once in a while. ...Very few.
http://metronews.ca/scene/962907/ps...orded-on-analogue-tape-for-that-flawed-sound/
Foo Fighters did it too.
It was interesting to check around and what they had to say about it. ...I could have provided more links, on more people into reel-to-reel recordings, but I figured that if I was interested to find out by goggling around, anyone else could do it too.
...It was mainly Rock music...not my genre anymore.
Well, improving technology is a given, with anything. Consider my question current; do you believe that a well implemented needledrop is incapable of capturing the analog based sound of your turntable/rig?
Oh, it is necessary in both cases. Designs need to be verified. And that verification better not be subject to chance or vagaries of human listeners, no two of whom seem to agree which one of those sounds best. That we have somehow convinced ourselves to not show any measurements boggles my mind.
Not saying that the measurements would determine the sound people think they hear. But that they are a required part of the design and manufacturing of a mechanical and electronic apparatus. You go from one motor drive to another and don't even bother to measure to see what it did to the waveforms coming out??? Surely it is not so.
How did you all collectively help manufacturers get away with not disclosing any data? What harm does it provide to have a graph that you can look at, showing if power supply is bleeding through like this one from the same site earlier:
This is the output of the turntable with the motor shut off and the arm up. Surely if I showed this atrocity you would gain some insights into the fidelity of your analog gear, do you not? You rather not know that much?
You are giving the manufacturers a free pass to produce any garbage and sell it in the name of high-end. I am confident in a measurement-free world, you are getting large percentage of devices that are designed in a totally incompetent way. That if you had measurements, these would be weeded out. Surely you don't think there are only A+ designers creating these high-end gear, do you?
Again, I am not trying to tell you to decide how something sounds based on measurements. But to not throw the baby out with the bath water. We need objective data because they are quick and importantly, reliable to generate. So and so saying this table sounds great may not at all translate to you. But a 60 Hz spike does to everyone, showing how the power supply doesn't have proper filtering.
It all sounds like being over weight and not wanting to ever stand on the scale....
As to digital, sorry no, that argument does not hold at all. Digital is so good that I find many classic measurements of it completely useless. I laugh when I see someone measure the frequency response of a DAC, creating graphs with 0.1 db resolution to show a 0.2 db drop at 20 KHz. If there is a place you don't want to measure, it is digital. Analog needs measurements like we need air. It needs to be there since the system is so susceptible to noise and distortion.
That is not given either.
Good digital systems for a long time have distortions that are well below threshold of hearing. What we are doing is pushing the distortions lower and lower for the sake of it because people keep thinking they are needed. And pay good money to get them.This is the output of my Mark Levinson No 36S which is a 15 year old DAC:
Granted, it is being driven by a Berkeley USB adapter but that is needed because my laptop is so "dirty." That footnote aside, there is not one shred of research, audio or human science that says we need something better.
What we pursue then is subjective belief. And as long as there are people willing to pay for a belief, there is no requirement for proof.
So no, we don't know that digital needed to get better. To know that, we would need to have data that we can trust to be reliable. Not a bunch of high-end audiophiles who got angry when we asked if we could make a list of *10* DACs that sound good (see http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...nsensus-Of-The-Best-DAC-s-In-The-Market-Today). We could not even agree on that. How on earth do we think we have any handle on this topic of digital fidelity? Why won't we assign some chance to us not knowing the reality of audio fidelity here?
we are really missing a large part of the equation with all the focus on graphs and numbers. and I know some of those who prefer digital will dismiss it. but how one's body/senses react to music over time is important.
how much music do you listen to with singular focus daily? not background but with most of your attention. and how do digital and analog work out for that endeavor. how do you feel? does it relax you, or assault you?
do you take a deep breath and melt into the music, or is it a thing 'over there'? and I'm not talking about headphones as we exercise or work as something helping to make time pass, I'm talking about sitting in the sweet spot and having that be satisfying and hold your attention.
what is your bodies relationship to the music listening experience?
and is the difference between analog and digital listening causing a difference in this area?
and I don't expect answers to change anyone's perspective....it's more about making people think about this aspect of listening for them personally and whether they get the payoff they might desire.
I know for myself that this is what happens when I have a group session is the sensory connection to the analog experience is something special.....and different entirely from the digital one. we all get swept up into it and get carried along in the wave. it's exhilarating.
how much music do you listen to with singular focus daily? not background but with most of your attention. and how do digital and analog work out for that endeavor. how do you feel? does it relax you, or assault you?
do you take a deep breath and melt into the music, or is it a thing 'over there'? and I'm not talking about headphones as we exercise or work as something helping to make time pass, I'm talking about sitting in the sweet spot and having that be satisfying and hold your attention.
what is your bodies relationship to the music listening experience?
and is the difference between analog and digital listening causing a difference in this area?
and I don't expect answers to change anyone's perspective....it's more about making people think about this aspect of listening for them personally and whether they get the payoff they might desire.
I know for myself that this is what happens when I have a group session is the sensory connection to the analog experience is something special.....and different entirely from the digital one. we all get swept up into it and get carried along in the wave. it's exhilarating.
That is a fair question TBone and I understand the point you are trying to make. I have never heard a needledrop recording in my system, as I have no way to play it, so I can not answer you. I would certainly be open to the experiment.
What will it tell me if I hear no difference? That digital is capable of making a perfect copy? I would want to listen to at least three hours worth to see how I feel afterwards. I do hear differences between digital and analog in general, as do most of the people here. So if the needledrops are perfect copies, why do they sound different from live music, just like analog does? There must be other challenges in the whole system chain.
Here are some more questions for you: if I did the experiment and heard a difference, does that say more about the hardware or the software used for the experiment? Would one hear a difference if the same neeledrop recording were played on two different digital sources? I presume one would. Which is correct? The one that sounds more like the straight analog?
A mirror does a pretty good job of reflecting back or copying what is in front of it. But there is something not quite right about the image, isn't there?
My problem with the so called fidelity of digital is that players do sound different from each other. The math is right, the implementation varies. Now what?
Yes, very important point.
Even a measured flat frequency response is meaningless, to a point. Recently i have heard two DACs that sound recessed in the highs -- and that compared to a turntable in the same system, which had open and lively highs! Guess what? These DACs measure just as flat as others that sound much more linear in frequency response.
My own DAC certainly doesn't sound rounded-off in the high frequencies.
And don't get me started on the vast (no exaggeration) differences in bass output between different DACs. Oh, they all measure flat down to 20 Hz? There can't be differences? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, measurement fans, but there are. They scream in your ear.
