What You're Missing

[mep]

You've set up the same old argument that you've rolled out here a couple of times before, Mark:

1) Analog must be better because everyone who has both analog and digital prefers analog.

At least we have a basis for comparison. Someone who only drinks beer and hates wine shouldn’t be a judge in a wine contest. When you live side by side with analog and digital on a daily basis, it gives you a real good basis for comparison.

-- The answer to this one is simple: Of course they do. No one would invest the money and deal with the hassle and narrow software choices of analog if they didn't prefer it. There is absolutely no point in owning analog if you don't prefer it.

And more importantly think that analog sounds better otherwise there would be no need to go through the hassle.

2) No one's disagreement is acceptable unless they own both analog and digital.

Again, the beer drinker that hates wine judging a wine contest, it doesn’t make sense.

3) And you haven't said so this time, but I know from experience you'll except none of the objective data that clearly demonstrates that even humble redbook is significantly more "hifi" than vinyl.

Well, we don’t listen to specifications that ‘prove’ superiority. At the end of the day you have to listen with your ears and decide for yourself. Of course some people can’t trust their ears so they rely on a spec sheet to tell them what they should think. The first CD players had superior specifications to analog, but I don’t know anyone who thought those specifications made the first CD players sound better than analog.

-- So the preference is fixed and the data is inadmissible. Great position to argue from.

My preference is “fixed’ based on my personal experience living with both mediums. Your preference is fixed because you have a specification sheet that tells you that digital should sound better because it measures better.

This is at least the third time you've shuffled out this particular stacked deck. It makes discussion, other than the nodding of those who agree, completely pointless. Reminds me of talk radio. Tim

The thing is Tim that there are lots of other people on this forum who own and listen to both digital and analog and it seems we all pretty much feel the same way. And the point to this thread was to tell people who have the resources and already own some very expensive gear that they have yet to hear what their system is truly capable of if they only listen to digital.

 

[FrantzM]

Analog Rules!

(says cjfrbw listening happily in Santa Cruz to mp3's recorded from internet radio through Stax headphones powered by Hogan 26/300b amplifier)

These debates always crack me up. if I can eat caviar, fine, but I will take what I can get if nothing else is available and enjoy it.

Do you really want to tell the connoisseur who buys a turntable that costs the price of a nice car, and takes two Phd's and three double D cup cheerleaders to set up, that digital is just as good?

When both are available, I gravitate toward vinyl by ineluctable instinctual mystery until that is just about all I listen to, why, I don't know and don't care. But I like digital fine, now that they have removed most of the gremlins.

Digital was just such a horror story for so long, it was traumatic, that's hard to forget, and it was associated with too many decepticons for decades.

cjfrbw

I might come to your neck of the hood before year's end.. Make sure to make yourself available when I come for a long listening session .. You do bring your music in whatever form ..

Your reply had me ROTFLMAO .. Man Still have tears in my eyes and it is so sincere ...

I, also, believe the digital gremlins have been exorcised... The best analog when digitized is virtually indistinguishable from the original analog which does suggest the purity accuracy and transparency of digital medium.
THis is initself a digital vs analog thread .. it will likely devolve into the usual but o repeat myself

Right now, having done serious analog and serious digital. To repeat myself, I don't miss analog a bit ... Will enjoy the analog software I have but my listenin tendencies are entirely focused digital...

 

[cjfrbw]

cjfrbw

I might come to your neck of the hood before year's end.. Make sure to make yourself available when I come for a long listening session .. You do bring your music in whatever form ..

Your reply had me ROTFLMAO .. Man Still have tears in my eyes and it is so sincere ...

I, also, believe the digital gremlins have been exorcised... The best analog when digitized is virtually indistinguishable from the original analog which does suggest the purity accuracy and transparency of digital medium.
THis is initself a digital vs analog thread .. it will likely devolve into the usual but o repeat myself

Right now, having done serious analog and serious digital. To repeat myself, I don't miss analog a bit ... Will enjoy the analog software I have but my listenin tendencies are entirely focused digital...

Hi, Frantz,

Sounds like a date!

Unfortunately, our local uber-host Steve Williams has migrated to the smoggy hills and dales of Southern California, to the "other Silicon Valley" of Coto De Caza.

You will have to tolerate the lesser satellite hosts from BAAS such as myself.

PM when your travel agenda is settled.

Carl

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Several times I have thought about selling all my analog system and using that money to buy a state of the art digital player. Life would then be much easier. But even the very expensive borrowed CD players that stayed in my system could not play up to the performance of any of my top hundred best LPs.

Thank you for making my point.

Tim

 

[Lee]

WBF has been a little boring lately (for me anyway)

Don't worry. I am back.

 

[Lee]

Hi John,

In truth $20K gets you a lot of digital these days too! Particularly in the second hand market...you could probably get close to a full DCS setup, full Esoteric, Stahl-Tek, Zanden, etc... I would love to hear what 20K of digital does in comparison with 20K of vinyl...

Having heard the Berkeley Audio DAC I would say even just $5K buys you a lot of digital these days.

 

[Whatmore]

I have both analog and CD, neither of which would be considered anywhere close to top of the range.
For the few pieces of music that I have both the cd and the record I generally prefer the cd. Not always, and of course it's not clear to me whether the differences are due to the different media or different mastering.

Anyway, despite my general preference for digital sound, I prefer the vinyl experience. I love the inconvenience of getting out the record, cleaning it, setting the needle hissing in the groove. I listen differently, tending to sit through an entire album rather than skipping from track to track on my digital server and I think that brings me closer to the experience that the artist wanted me to have. So in general I prefer to listen to records but for reasons other than sound quality - if that makes any sense

 

[Lee]

When I play analog it just sounds amazing especially on choice vinyl like Neil Young at Massey Hall. I would say my digital rig is not as good as my analog one but it can also sound amazing. Same for my Sony SCD-777ES on a great SACD. And my computer rig continues to sound excellent and benefit from tweaks like new cables and the V-Link 192.

I've been a veteran of many digital vs. analog discussions but I have to say I am at peace now.

What I have learned is that each format done well can sound amazing. You get to a certain level and you just want to find really great music and listen.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"At least we have a basis for comparison. Someone who only drinks beer and hates wine shouldn’t be a judge in a wine contest."

But this isn't the argument you keep making, Mark. You are making the argument that doesn't ask or consider how much wine you tasted or drunk, in your life or in this week. The drinker's experience doesn't matter. If he doesn't have a wine cellar in his house, right now, his opinion is not to be considered.

I don't have to have any alcohol in my house at all. I don't need to have drunk anything so far this month to know that I prefer bourbon to vodka. It's a false argument, mark. You can start a dozen more threads and that won't change.

Tim

 

[rockitman]

When I went back to analog in 2/2010 I bought a Clearaudio Performance SE turntable/Satisfy Carbon arm, Talismann V2 cart($6,000) with a CA Balance Pre ($1000)...$7k easily bested the best hi Rez sources I could find listening on my $6k digital PS Audio Perfect Wave via the I2s connection. The instrument/voice separation, timbral accuracy, especially on the cymbal splashes, bass extension and sound stage width/depth were all greatly improved using that $7k rig.

 

[JackD201]

What seems so seldom discussed is how far analog has come in the last decade. Take the oldie classic tables like the Garrards, Lencos, Technics', Thorens', Rek o Kuts et al and what enthusiasts have done with plinths, platter and other mods have brought to the table. Now look at the ground up designs using today's material technology and more precise tooling. Computer aided design with finite element analysis, advanced motors with advanced speed control. How about arms that benefit from the same but most of all the cartridges. If one happened to stop in 1992 or even 2002 at the midlevel, I'd say yes he might be missing something as far as the cutting edge is concerned.

Digital on the other hand is a little more democratic in that the differences between DACs appear to be more of nuance issues rather than information recovery as is the case with analog, throw in transports and that changes. That's part of the excitement about computer audio, it promises to level the field with the usually more expensive transport's elimination.

In any case, I'm not out to make converts. I will say that in my experience the effort in analog has been well worth it. As to what is better to me is a moot point as I have very little in both formats and as I always say, I'll get the music where I can get it. I've also said that of the few that I have in both formats LP wasn't always better. Specific music aside, top LPs vs top CDs, I my blood gets flowing with the LPs much more often.

Here's why I feel that is. When it comes to familiar music that I already like, I can listen to this on anything that isn't annoying. For this minimum standard that would mean anything that doesn't shriek and doesn't have one note bass. I'm even ok with no bass, just as long as it doesn't shriek. I can switch between LPs and CDs without having to make too many mental adjustments with familiar music, something more difficult with the unfamiliar.

When it comes to new music that I am trying to learn about it's more of a chore with CDs. There is a caveat. If I were playing LPs of less than VG+ grade it would be a chore too which is what I would equate my best off the shelf CDs to. I almost always buy NM or sealed though and I think this is a big factor. Properly set up analog with good LPs just gets out of the way better for me. I've done breakfast to dinner sessions on LP. For CD 3 hours would be tops.

 

[NorthStar]

--- Me I'm just a passive participant (like Steve, Amir, and many others);
but I read everything and I'm having a blast! :b

* Today is the era of HIGH RES DIGITAL Music Download! Accessibility, practicality and evolution.
...Value too. :b

And by the way Mark, life is only boring when one's own perception & participation is on its side. :b

 

[Gregadd]

cjfrbw

The best analog when digitized is virtually indistinguishable from the original analog which does suggest the purity accuracy and transparency of digital medium.
...

How can that be?
Edit: In order for that to be true both mediums would have to be perfect. That is each medium would neither add nor subtract anything.

 

[Bill Hart]

How can that be?
Edit: In order for that to be true both mediums would have to be perfect. That is each medium would neither add nor subtract anything.

Or, the analog process is in some way 'filtering' the sound (in an agreeable way) so that it sounds 'analog' even though copied digitally. Which may have something to do with how the original recording was made or mastered? Doesn't Fremer do this all the time?
And don't recording engineers often do the same thing at the end of the recording process? I.e, they record digitally, but then process using analog devices to get warmth, more 'analog' sound?

 

[microstrip]

(...) * Today is the era of HIGH RES DIGITAL Music Download! Accessibility, practicality and evolution.
...Value too. :b

Bob,

I think that, as usual , you are too optimistic. High res digital music is still a very small niche, that at its best can compete with vinyl .
I do not have numbers and can be wrong, but I think that the number of tittles available in SACD surpasses the TRUE hi rez.

And value of high rez tittles can be very questionable - the industry charges significantly more for high rez than for other formats.

 

[FrantzM]

How can that be?
Edit: In order for that to be true both mediums would have to be perfect. That is each medium would neither add nor subtract anything.

Gregadd

have you subjeced yourself to such an experiment: Needle-drop of high quality Vinyl gear through a High Quality (not necessarily expensive, often downright affordable by Audiophile standards) ADC? I have and it is pretty surprising how mcuh the digital preserves the "analog" medium sound ...
Else we can only conjecture.
Your argument about the perfection of both medium doesn't hold. There will be losses no doubt, it is a physical necessity (Laws of thermodynamics, etc) It only suffice however that the duplicating chain/medium losses fall under the threshold of the observer perceptual abilities ...

 

[dallasjustice]

Or, the analog process is in some way 'filtering' the sound (in an agreeable way) so that it sounds 'analog' even though copied digitally. Which may have something to do with how the original recording was made or mastered? Doesn't Fremer do this all the time?
And don't recording engineers often do the same thing at the end of the recording process? I.e, they record digitally, but then process using analog devices to get warmth, more 'analog' sound?

A distinguished member of this forum recently told me that he will be doing a master tape to DSD128 demo in Denver at RMAF using a Korg. You can decide for yourself if digital is inferior to analog.

 

[Gregadd]

Gregadd
have you subjeced yourself to such an experiment: Needle-drop of high quality Vinyl gear through a High Quality (not necessarily expensive, often downright affordable by Audiophile standards) ADC?

No I have not.

I have and it is pretty surprising how mcuh the digital preserves the "analog" medium sound

Which implies it is not a perfect copy and therefore should be distinguishable.

Your argument about the perfection of both medium doesn't hold. There will be losses no doubt, it is a physical necessity (Laws of thermodynamics, etc) It only suffice however that the duplicating chain/medium losses fall under the threshold of the observer perceptual abilities

Agaiin those losses imply an imperfect copy and those differences should be audible.

Furhthermore the ability to make a perfect copy(if possible) is far more noteworthy than the usual digital-analog food fight.

 

[Bill Hart]

A distinguished member of this forum recently told me that he will be doing a master tape to DSD128 demo in Denver at RMAF using a Korg. You can decide for yourself if digital is inferior to analog.

Hey, counselor. What's a Korg? I know the keyboards, but that can't be what you are talking about...

 

[Gregadd]

Or, the analog process is in some way 'filtering' the sound (in an agreeable way) so that it sounds 'analog' even though copied digitally. Which may have something to do with how the original recording was made or mastered? Doesn't Fremer do this all the time?
And don't recording engineers often do the same thing at the end of the recording process? I.e, they record digitally, but then process using analog devices to get warmth, more 'analog' sound?

Whart perhaps I altered the hypothetical. I am thingking vinyl vs CD. It might be differemt if you had two recorders. Rrecorded it to analog and then converted it to digital. Such a comparison would not mean very much. Both recordings would be digital. All recordings oroginate and terminate as analog.