WBF Poll: Which Sounds Better, Digital or Analog?

[microstrip]

Until one year ago I would not think twice - my preference would be analog. Currently I still pick analog after some hesitation - SOTA digital equipment listened trough an extremely tweaked high-end system can surpass vinyl in some (not all) musical aspects, not only in the classical signal to noise ratio, rock stability and detail. It is funny that a top digital system is much more sensitive to the extreme tweaks, such as power and signal cables, power conditioners and even the need of a preamplifier, than the old vinyl.

BTW, when I refer to SOTA digital I address mainly to the Metronome Kalista/Calypso and c2A/c8, the only ones with which I have long experience. And I still have not listened to a virtual music server that could approach the subjective performance of a top CD spinner with a matching DAC.

Also IMHO a few of the best analog Tapeproject tapes are clear winers, but the reduced offer makes it a inconsequential winer.

 

[rbbert]

I agree. Do you remember what the LP chain was?

Transcriptor (?) table, don't remember the arm (but it listed for about $6k, spposedly), $5k Lyra cart (Atlas?), Zesto pre, then Pass XP-20.

edit: pretty sure it was a Tri-Planar tonearm and the Lyra Etna cartridge

 

[asiufy]

I voted analog, but only by a thin margin.

DSD is sounding pretty damn amazing in my system.

Me too. The issues with bad mastering, that mostly affect digital, still stand, though.
But definitely the difference got much narrower now, with MSB Select.


alexandre

 

[JackD201]

Best vs Best vs Best vs Best vs Best preference based on MY personal and limited experience

Tape
Vinyl
DSD
Toss up between HRZ PCM and Redbook (more dependent on the recordings than the others) Strangely enough I prefer 24/88.2 and 96 to 192

In general terms I agree with PeterA. Commodity level digital spanks entry level vinyl. I'll take a Best Buy DVD player to a Crosley any day.

 

[Al M.]

It is funny that a top digital system is much more sensitive to the extreme tweaks, such as power and signal cables, power conditioners and even the need of a preamplifier, than the old vinyl.

Yes, digital is finnicky when it comes to tweaks. My power conditioner was essential to the performance on rhythm & timing on my old Wadia 12 DAC, while vinyl inherently has this natural ability to get rhythm & timing (the foot tapping quality of music) right. The power conditioner is also essential to the timbral resolution of my current Berkeley Alpha DAC2. The difference with running it straight from the wall is not subtle at all.

 

[Al M.]

In general terms I agree with PeterA. Commodity level digital spanks entry level vinyl. I'll take a Best Buy DVD player to a Crosley any day.

And that is why CD was such a success upon its introduction. Common vinyl playback just wasn't very good and didn't stand a chance against the onslaught of digital. And the flaws of early CD playback, so evident on high end systems, were effectively masked in the average hi-fi systems that were found in common households.

Even high end turntables were nowhere near the quality where they are now, but that is a different story. They still beat CD playback from that early era.

 

[ddk]

In general terms I agree with PeterA. Commodity level digital spanks entry level vinyl. I'll take a Best Buy DVD player to a Crosley any day.

LOL Jack! Good to know that at least digital stands a chance against the Crosley!

Out of curiosity, what do you really consider entry level analog?

david

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Of course the correct answer is "the best recording."

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Hi David when I say entry literally I mean entry. Basically table, cart bundles you might find in say Radio Shack and Walmart but extending up to OEM plastic plinth belt drive DJ decks or stuff like the basic Goldring. Flimsy tables most often coming with arms where only VTF is adjustable. You'd be lucky if even the most basic VTA/SRA adjustment capability is provided. That's today.

Same would apply to rack system tables in the 80s or similar sold as stand alone offerings.

 

[Mosin]

1) reel to reel tape, 2) reel to reel tape, 3) reel to reel tape.

1) sometimes 2) sometimes 3) sometimes

 

[rockitman]

Wow, the meaningless poll is getting close. Clearly the majority of digital voters have not heard/experienced well sorted analog and vote their only choice.

 

[jeromelang]

A lot of people don't realize - when they remove their turntable physcially away from their system, their optical/digital player will sound more open and organic.

The more metallic parts on their turntable, the more it affects timbre characteristics and soundstaging of the entire system....

On most high end TT, the motor is a chunky piece of metal to start with.
And then some people puts a metal peripheral ring over their metallic platter rotating over a metallic plinth....



And vice versa.


If I'm going to listen critically on my vinyl playback system, I'll take my Emmy combo and put them into the store room.


I'll say, give either your digital or your analog a chance to "shine" on its own.

 

[Al M.]

Wow, the meaningless poll is getting close. Clearly the majority of digital voters have not heard/experienced well sorted analog and vote their only choice.

You will not win an argument with insults. By the way, you complain that digital fans have not heard the best analog, but have you heard the very best of digital?

By the way, as I have argued before, in my experience great analog is superior to the digital that I have heard (and no, I have not heard the very best digital). But in a way, for me, it becomes somehwat meaningless given the fact that most of the music/performances that I listen to are not available in analog. And again, in my view the average analog experience suffers from an abundance of mediocre or even poor pressings in the catalog (many of the 60s and 70s pressings of pop and jazz are worthless). That analog at its very best shines is a different matter.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Play vinyl after you finish listening to DSD though and get back to me.

The problem I have with vinyl is that there have not been any new releases of interest in 2 decades.

 

[Al M.]

The problem I have with vinyl is that there have not been any new releases of interest in 2 decades.

Not quite so, there is some new rock that comes out on vinyl, but yes, the general lack of availablilty of new material on vinyl makes the format musically less interesting to me as well.

 

[ddk]

Hi David when I say entry literally I mean entry. Basically table, cart bundles you might find in say Radio Shack and Walmart but extending up to OEM plastic plinth belt drive DJ decks or stuff like the basic Goldring. Flimsy tables most often coming with arms where only VTF is adjustable. You'd be lucky if even the most basic VTA/SRA adjustment capability is provided. That's today.

Same would apply to rack system tables in the 80s or similar sold as stand alone offerings.

Real junk then! I'm with you on that because $1000-$1500 Denon tt packages are hell of bang for the buck and already sound very good. Then again their $350 all in one CD mini systems hold their own against some high end systems too.

david

 

[Mosin]

Not quite so, there is some new rock that comes out on vinyl, but yes, the general lack of availability of new material on vinyl makes the format musically less interesting to me as well.

Actually, almost all of the vinyl I buy these days is of new material. There is an insane amount of new talent out there, if you look a bit. Also, many of the more established artists also offer vinyl. My gripe with it is that the processing is often overdone.

I'd rather watch YouTube than listen to today's other digital formats. The picture goes a long way towards covering up digital's shortcomings. It's an audio slight-of-hand, I suppose.

 

[amirm]

Wow, the meaningless poll is getting close. Clearly the majority of digital voters have not heard/experienced well sorted analog and vote their only choice.

The poll has meaning to us. We like to know the makeup of our membership better. That way we can tailor our forum for the audience. If for example 80% of you were analog heads, we would be inviting more analog experts to join us. And vice versa. It also helps with the organization of the forum and ordering of subforums.

It is also useful if you are a member and walk into a discussion on these topics. Again, if the site was 80% analog, you would know that there would be some mass hanging if you were to say analog sucks.

I was very clear at the start that this is a simple poll to find out which side of the fence you are. The numbers will be what the numbers will be and should not create any tension.

 

[amirm]

And to bring more clarity, I have heard and own analog equipment. But I am a "digital guy." When you are discussing something with me, you should operate from that point of view. It doesn't mean I don't listen to analog any more than analog person voting such, doesn't listen to digital.

 

[rockitman]

The poll has meaning to us. We like to know the makeup of our membership better. That way we can tailor our forum for the audience. If for example 80% of you were analog heads, we would be inviting more analog experts to join us. And vice versa. It also helps with the organization of the forum and ordering of subforums.

It is also useful if you are a member and walk into a discussion on these topics. Again, if the site was 80% analog, you would know that there would be some mass hanging if you were to say analog sucks.

I was very clear at the start that this is a simple poll to find out which side of the fence you are. The numbers will be what the numbers will be and should not create any tension.

yes I understand...I guess I could have been more tactful.. Hasn't this issue been raised before (analog vs digital) ? I guess I was feeling a bit of..

Carry on...