WBF Poll: Which Sounds Better, Digital or Analog?

[Al M.]

Yes, way, way past time for this BS about stairsteps to die. It is so far off track it is not even wrong.

Watch this video.

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Using quality analog sources, and quality analog monitoring after an AD/DA stage you will see the above illustration is nothing more than someone's misguided imagination.

If you don't believe him, you can get an O-scope and check it for yourself. Having done so, I can save you the trouble and say don't bother, it will show just what the video shows. But you don't believe any of us? Fine, no problemo. Just get yourself a good analog oscope, quite cheap these days and try it for yourself. Until you confirm the stairsteps, stop perpetuating this god awful, incorrect, BS. You should feel very ashamed. Very ashamed. At a bare minimum you should feel badly for having been taken in. Don't spew this garbage out into the world.

Yes, thank you. That's the video I had in mind. Everyone should watch it. I did, and it was good to have my preconceptions corrected.

That doesn't mean that digital is as good as, or even better than, analog. In theory it should be, but my ears tell me that in practice it is (not yet) so. Yet as Amir says, one should not use the wrong technical arguments to 'prove that digital is inferior', and one should also not dismiss the technical arguments why analog is technically quite flawed and the measurements that prove that it is so -- even though to my ears on the best equipment currently it still leads to superior results, for whatever reason; and no, you cannot explain away superior timbral detail as 'coloration'.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Yes, thank you. That's the video I had in mind. Everyone should watch it. I did, and it was good to have my preconceptions corrected.

That doesn't mean that digital is as good as, or even better than, analog. In theory it should be, but my ears tell me that in practice it is (not yet) so. Yet as Amir says, one should not use the wrong technical arguments to 'prove that digital is inferior', and one should also not dismiss the technical arguments why analog is technically quite flawed and the measurements that prove that it is so -- even though to my ears on the best equipment currently it still leads to superior results, for whatever reason; and no, you cannot explain away superior timbral detail as 'coloration'.

The problem in a nutshell. When solid-state equipment was introduced, people used measurements developed for tubes to prove the new technology was superior. Same thing goes with digital. People use measurements that are analog based to prove digital is better. No, digital comes with its own set of new and unique issues. Unless one believes digital was perfect from the get-go.

 

[Al M.]

The problem in a nutshell. When solid-state equipment was introduced, people used measurements developed for tubes to prove the new technology was superior. Same thing goes with digital. People use measurements that are analog based to prove digital is better. No, digital comes with its own set of new and unique issues. Unless one believes digital was perfect from the get-go.

No argument here. Early measurements of digital, for example, ignored the detrimental influence of jitter, and no, obviously digital was not perfect from the get-go. Digital does come with its own set of new and unique issues as you say -- and proponents of 'digital perfection' tend to ignore them. We may not even yet appreciate all the issues and their true impact. The industry is still learning and it is good that it is -- current digital is so much superior to early digital, but it still has a long way to go.

 

[TBone]

No argument here. Early measurements of digital, for example, ignored the detrimental influence of jitter, and no, obviously digital was not perfect from the get-go. Digital does come with its own set of new and unique issues as you say -- and proponents of 'digital perfection' tend to ignore them. We may not even yet appreciate all the issues and their true impact. The industry is still learning and it is good that it is -- current digital is so much superior to early digital, but it still has a long way to go.

Your stating the obvious, but claiming that digital is "superior" today is far too dismissive of the many excellent recordings pre-"superior" days. And one other thing, those that venture into shows, stores or home demo's, who then claim that single instance as a trump card for either analogs or digital, is near meaningless to me. In essence, your comparing the sound of entirely different systems, to each other, simply not just the source.

I'm lucky enough to have access to much high-end equipment, my system has included both analog & digital, w/ a hands on approach, for decades. Very high levels of "audiophile" reproduction can easily be demo'd and appreciated as "superior" within ANY very well implemented and highly refined system. Trust me, it's easy to fool people into thinking they're hearing "superior" vinyl using a well implemented 16/44 needledrop, never mind higher rez recordings. And yes, differences do exist, some heard & quantifiable, but they're not as easily identified as some have claimed. I have friends who routinely insist that I only play LP's during my home demo's, then they go off claiming to others that "analog sounds superior". This has happened on numerous occasions. Some of these audiophiles won't even entertain listening to any of the hi-end CDP I've used (or soon to be implemented dedicated computer w/proprietary Linux op) ... so I fool em ... have done so on a consistent basis; far too often they're not even aware of my deceptions, as they groove pleasurably to the music ...

 

[TBone]

Myles, just an aside, but when you start a post with a stern "no" (I have a friend who does this consistently, drives me crazy) ... should I also consider that dismissive of ALL my entire experiences in regard to this topic?

 

[JackD201]

Both appear to be improving so it is fair to assume that we aren't at "perfect" yet. Maybe the reason is just purely competition. If it is then it is because there are people out there that really do want improvements. I'm not saying we should all get all OC and keep on chasing. Stopping to enjoy ourselves and enjoy the fruits of our investments in time, effort and money is a must lest we burn out. It is comforting to know however that out there people are still working to give us more choices down the road.

 

[TBone]

Both appear to be improving so it is fair to assume that we aren't at "perfect" yet. Maybe the reason is just purely competition. If it is then it is because there are people out there that really do want improvements. I'm not saying we should all get all OC and keep on chasing. Stopping to enjoy ourselves and enjoy the fruits of our investments in time, effort and money is a must lest we burn out. It is comforting to know however that out there people are still working to give us more choices down the road.

Perhaps, but while everything in techno life is supposedly improving, we live with what we have/know/experienced. Too many people dismiss early recorded digital, I think, predominantly because much of the hardware at that point in time wasn't capable of demoing the software properly. I did just that for far too long myself, until ...

 

[JackD201]

Perhaps, but while everything in techno life is supposedly improving, we live with what we have/know/experienced. Too many people dismiss early recorded digital, I think, predominantly because much of the hardware at that point in time wasn't capable of demoing the software properly. I did just that for far too long myself, until ...

I was an early digital adopter in the late 80s as a teenager. Like everybody else, I was tired of ticks and pops, of cleaning records by hand and putting them on dish racks. Basically ordinary joe vinyl listening. When I got back into vinyl a decade later, I already had a very decent digital rig. The turning point was a home demo consisting of a VPI Aries 2 with JW arm and a lower CA MC model and a CA basic phono stage. I also learned that probably like most people, I wasn't setting up my tables properly in the first place. The demo units never left my house. The ensuing years saw an arms race between digital and analog and I have a DAC graveyard to show for it. In an earlier post I said that in general if I were asked what is better, my answer would be "It depends". The poll question however is what's best to me. Comparing the best I've heard of both, it's analog. No I haven't heard everything but I think I've heard and personally handled enough from 2" multitrack tape, half and quarter inch, MDR, HDR, multiple DAW platforms including AMS Neve, wind up gramophones to tables that would look at home in SciFi movies all the way down to ATRAC Minidisc, MP3 players and cassettes to have basis for my preferences. One big issue with early digital releases was the quality of the CDs themselves. I still have all my early adopter CDs. Many have the reflective layers flaking off in the edges.

 

[PeterA]

Your stating the obvious, but claiming that digital is "superior" today is far too dismissive of the many excellent recordings pre-"superior" days. And one other thing, those that venture into shows, stores or home demo's, who then claim that single instance as a trump card for either analogs or digital, is near meaningless to me. In essence, your comparing the sound of entirely different systems, to each other, simply not just the source.

I'm lucky enough to have access to much high-end equipment, my system has included both analog & digital, w/ a hands on approach, for decades. Very high levels of "audiophile" reproduction can easily be demo'd and appreciated as "superior" within ANY very well implemented and highly refined system. Trust me, it's easy to fool people into thinking they're hearing "superior" vinyl using a well implemented 16/44 needledrop, never mind higher rez recordings. And yes, differences do exist, some heard & quantifiable, but they're not as easily identified as some have claimed. I have friends who routinely insist that I only play LP's during my home demo's, then they go off claiming to others that "analog sounds superior". This has happened on numerous occasions. Some of these audiophiles won't even entertain listening to any of the hi-end CDP I've used (or soon to be implemented dedicated computer w/proprietary Linux op) ... so I fool em ... have done so on a consistent basis; far too often they're not even aware of my deceptions, as they groove pleasurably to the music ...

This is in response to a post from Al M. I can assure you that Al's, and many other's, opinions are based not on quick show, store or home demos but on longer term comparative listening sessions to well thought out systems and extensively to live, acoustic music. And not just on entire systems in different settings, but also on single systems with both sources available. In fact, one system he knows well, and which I just heard again yesterday, has a variety of digital sources and one analog source. The owner, and at least three people who I have listened with and compared at least three DACs of high regard (including Playback and MSB) prefer the analog in that system. These are not careless evaluations as you suggest. They are sighted, not double blind and no measurements were involved, so they may not be considered valid by some, but they were convincing to those who did the listening, nevertheless.

I should add that I have heard Al's all digital system many times. It is excellent. He has stated that he thinks the best analog that he has heard sounds more like real music, especially in the area of timbral accuracy, than does the digital that he has heard. Why try so hare to dispute or criticize that?

 

[Al M.]

This is in response to a post from Al M. I can assure you that Al's, and many other's, opinions are based not on quick show, store or home demos but on longer term comparative listening sessions to well thought out systems and extensively to live, acoustic music. And not just on entire systems in different settings, but also on single systems with both sources available. In fact, one system he knows well, and which I just heard again yesterday, has a variety of digital sources and one analog source. The owner, and at least three people who I have listened with and compared at least three DACs of high regard (including Playback and MSB) prefer the analog in that system. These are not careless evaluations as you suggest. They are sighted, not double blind and no measurements were involved, so they may not be considered valid by some, but they were convincing to those who did the listening, nevertheless.

I should add that I have heard Al's all digital system many times. It is excellent. He has stated that he thinks the best analog that he has heard sounds more like real music, especially in the area of timbral accuracy, than does the digital that he has heard. Why try so hare to dispute or criticize that?

Thank you, Peter.

I am one of those who prefer the analog in that single system with both sources available that you mentioned. But then, it also must be said that the analog set-up is of a quality that most haven't heard. Also, the system as a whole is of such superior resolution that it makes the differences between analog and digital easily audible.

 

[TBone]

These are not careless evaluations as you suggest. They are sighted, not double blind and no measurements were involved, so they may not be considered valid by some, but they were convincing to those who did the listening, nevertheless.

I should add that I have heard Al's all digital system many times. It is excellent. He has stated that he thinks the best analog that he has heard sounds more like real music, especially in the area of timbral accuracy, than does the digital that he has heard. Why try so hare to dispute or criticize that?

Never suggested carelessness, I am suggesting that limited demo's using many foreign systems, within many different environments, different components, is a relatively poor way of evaluating any format - as an absolute.

I didn't vote here because I'd feel like a hypocrite if I did; since I also consider analog superior, sometimes by leaps & bounds ... but certainly not on an absolute basis.

 

[Al M.]

Your stating the obvious, but claiming that digital is "superior" today is far too dismissive of the many excellent recordings pre-"superior" days.

Sorry, I should have specified 'digital playback'. There are indeed excellent digital recordings from the early days, next to very dated ones that glaringly show flaws in early technology when it was not correctly implemented (you would not hear the artifacts that are audible there in many, if any, modern digital recordings).

 

[TBone]

>>Also, the system as a whole is of such superior resolution that it makes the differences between analog and digital easily audible.<<

Well, I hope you're not inferring that my system isn't capable of discerning huge differences in not only source components, but also software/mastering qualities? Trust me, if that's the case, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've heard more than a few recent SIM components, I fully understand how they compare to my legacy based components - especially in terms of overall transparency. I'm in the process of possibly adopting a higher end SIM DAC as we speak, within a new computer system, independent of my current CDP, which offers it's own set of advantages. I've always had the highest regard for SIM digital.

 

[Al M.]

>>Also, the system as a whole is of such superior resolution that it makes the differences between analog and digital easily audible.<<

Well, I hope you're not inferring that my system isn't capable of discerning huge differences in not only source components, but also software/mastering qualities? Trust me, if that's the case, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've heard more than a few recent SIM components, I fully understand how they compare to my legacy based components - especially in terms of overall transparency. I'm in the process of possibly adopting a higher end SIM DAC as we speak, within a new computer system, independent of my current CDP, which offers it's own set of advantages. I've always had the highest regard for SIM digital.

No, don't worry, I did not infer that.

 

[TBone]

One big issue with early digital releases was the quality of the CDs themselves. I still have all my early adopter CDs. Many have the reflective layers flaking off in the edges.

I hear ya ... I'm encountering this more & more ... such a shame .... in fact, this past weekend I downloaded to HD a damaged (won't play in any of my transports) precious "flaker" (SRV original CD) using EAC - successfully. Got to love the advantages of digital from an archival point of view.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I was an early digital adopter in the late 80s as a teenager. Like everybody else, I was tired of ticks and pops, of cleaning records by hand and putting them on dish racks. Basically ordinary joe vinyl listening. When I got back into vinyl a decade later, I already had a very decent digital rig. The turning point was a home demo consisting of a VPI Aries 2 with JW arm and a lower CA MC model and a CA basic phono stage. I also learned that probably like most people, I wasn't setting up my tables properly in the first place. The demo units never left my house. The ensuing years saw an arms race between digital and analog and I have a DAC graveyard to show for it. In an earlier post I said that in general if I were asked what is better, my answer would be "It depends". The poll question however is what's best to me. Comparing the best I've heard of both, it's analog. No I haven't heard everything but I think I've heard and personally handled enough from 2" multitrack tape, half and quarter inch, MDR, HDR, multiple DAW platforms including AMS Neve, wind up gramophones to tables that would look at home in SciFi movies all the way down to ATRAC Minidisc, MP3 players and cassettes to have basis for my preferences. One big issue with early digital releases was the quality of the CDs themselves. I still have all my early adopter CDs. Many have the reflective layers flaking off in the edges.

The real problem that many don't realize is that a lot was left on the hard drive with many early digital recordings.

 

[JackD201]

Please elaborate Myles. Do you mean the quality from early CD plants? I would definitely agree. Amazing difference between CDs coming out of the first world vs say those that came out of our local plants.

 

[ddk]

Please elaborate Myles. Do you mean the quality from early CD plants? I would definitely agree. Amazing difference between CDs coming out of the first world vs say those that came out of our local plants.

In the early days there were a lot of direct transfers from analog masters to CD, later quite a few popular ones like Kind Of Blue, Take Five, etc. were re-issued again as so called audiophile versions, XRCD, Gold CD, 16 & 24 bit remasters by the label and so on but none actually come even close to the quality or the original analog transfer pressings. For me the more they dick with it, the less I like it, same goes for the majority of 180 gram vinyl re-issues I own/heard, they're so bland.

One big issue with early digital releases was the quality of the CDs themselves. I still have all my early adopter CDs. Many have the reflective layers flaking off in the edges.

I have some of those too but mine started peeling only after I removed those crap mod squad rings I glued on them.

david

 

[TBone]

In the early days there were a lot of direct transfers from analog masters to CD, later quite a few popular ones like Kind Of Blue, Take Five, etc. were re-issued again as so called audiophile versions, XRCD, Gold CD, 16 & 24 bit remasters by the label and so on but none actually come even close to the quality or the original analog transfer pressings. For me the more they dick with it, the less I like it, same goes for the majority of 180 gram vinyl re-issues I own/heard, they're so bland.



I have some of those too but mine started peeling only after I removed those crap mod squad rings I glued on them.

david

were those like these (these fit on, didn't use glue) ...


Bland would accurately describe some of my latest 180/200 g pressings I've obtained. Purchased because I felt the need to replace some of my early favorite original LPs, which unfortunately, no longer are fully playable. Still trying to figure out if my latest Foxtrot (2008-5099943384617) 180g purchase is inherently dull or I haven't managed to dial-in SRA properly.

 

[ddk]

were those like these (these fit on, didn't use glue) ...
View attachment 21005

No, they were about 5mm wide flat ring and you stuck them on top of the CD. The glue would eat into the silver over time. I had those rings too, they were green if I recall, and there was a green edge marker too. Fortunately they started making decent transports so we could do away with all this junk.

Bland would accurately describe some of my latest 180/200 g pressings I've obtained. Purchased because I felt the need to replace some of my early favorite original LPs, which unfortunately, no longer are fully playable. Still trying to figure out if my latest Foxtrot (2008-5099943384617) 180g purchase is inherently dull or I haven't managed to dial-in SRA properly.

I fiddled around with the VTA and all you can do is make it a bit brighter or more bassy but can't breathe life into it. I'm in the same boat as you I have some records that I over played and I can't find a decent replacement because everyone else seems to have over played them too. I'm not sure what's to blame the remastering, the vinyl formula and the pressing plant or both.

david