That can be a real mistake. I've heard digital w tubes that really sucks.I think its basically installing some tubes in the design of the digital player , hence the popularity of zanden audio research players etc
That can be a real mistake. I've heard digital w tubes that really sucks.I think its basically installing some tubes in the design of the digital player , hence the popularity of zanden audio research players etc
That can be a real mistake. I've heard digital w tubes that really sucks.
I think its basically installing some tubes in the design of the digital player , hence the popularity of zanden audio research players , lampizator etc
Ok Al, in answer to Caesar's Q, what makes digital sound like analog.
If digital possesses:
Continuousness ie seamless lows to highs without highlighting any frequency band, allied to a smoothness that doesn't blunt resolution.
Midband texture and palbabilty, a real reach out and touch feel to the sound.
Jump factor and total immersion simultaneously.
Tonal discrimination, so every album sounds different to the last, resolving the full character of the acoustic and instrumental flavours.
Timbral accuracy, so instruments and voices absolutely sound accurate and familiar, no syntheticness.
Zero fatigue so one can get totally caught up in the moment w no archetypes in the sound to break the spell or trigger lack of concentration.
...I'm sure there are more things.
The other ones i have heard multiple times plus i have heard so many players with tubed outputstages that i dont think " lampizator * will sound that much different .
Besides that i am free to comment on a free hifi forum .
Surely there are a lot more things. Analog seems to be so much better than real, provided we have a great imagination ...
I think it is a cheap description in the same way that saying something is "musical." Both terms are subjectively (and objectively) amorphous.What do people really mean by that?
Al, pre Covid, was going to live classical at least once a fortnt. Maybe not the best London venues, but great experiences nevertheless. And as concerts would start, a little part of my brain would relax into gauging whether the sound felt more digital or analog.
Well, some people take analog, rather than actual unamplified live music, as their reference against which to compare digital.
Of course then analog wins, because digital will never sound exactly like it across the board.
Is the treble of your digital in general more prominent than the treble of your vinyl setup?
This is a comparison that is useful only to some extent. Even though it's the same album, mastering may in fact be different between the two media. And it often is; above I posted links to the specificities of vinyl mastering.
Al, pre Covid, was going to live classical at least once a fortnt. Maybe not the best London venues, but great experiences nevertheless. And as concerts would start, a little part of my brain would relax into gauging whether the sound felt more digital or analog.
To start, lack of surface noise and smooth crispness of sound always signified digital as the closest comparator. But as I then become aware more of natural warmth, heft in mids, wall of sound tangibility and immersiveness, and timbre to die for...well, it just feels so analog. And so my conclusion is that despite all it's flaws, the gestalt of analog is still closest to live. With the caveat that my cdp gets close Lol.
Yet if you have both analog and digital, and there are slight differences in tonal balance as is often the case *), you will be inclined to optimize for the source that you already favor to start with, leaving the other at a slight disadvantage. Then your initial preference becomes reinforcing.
i don't hear differences in tonal balance in my system from digital to analog. only from recording to recording.....regardless of format.
Not true Al. I may be the only person here who has used a digital benchmark to optimise my analog, find as a result of my analog supercharging what the shortcomings in digital are, improve the digital further, and find digital and analog converge, w only one aspect in each diverging. My room acoustics and clean power being the great "levellers", and live classical the ultimate litmus test for both.Marc, as I said I used to feel like that, not anymore.
***
One advantage that I have is that I only have one source, digital, so I can optimize the listening experience, including tonal balance (e.g., by acoustics and speaker toe in), to just this source.
Others who have only analog as source can optimize for that.
Yet if you have both analog and digital, and there are slight differences in tonal balance as is often the case *), you will be inclined to optimize for the source that you already favor to start with, leaving the other at a slight disadvantage. Then your initial preference becomes reinforcing.
______________________
*) for example, just a slight reduction in treble prominence can result in a significant increase in perceived midrange warmth and mid bass prominence
What does it mean when people describe Digital as Sounding like "Analog"? Best term?
Of course and that is why analog, per se, cannot be a reference even if it is your preference.However, I have heard quite pronounced differences in perceived tonal balance by just changing the cartridge, on the same arm and turntable.
(...) And as concerts would start, a little part of my brain would relax into gauging whether the sound felt more digital or analog. (...)
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |