I’ve found that on my system the digital side is more finely etched than the analog side. Both sound great in their own way, but records just don’t sound so finely defined.
What is your experience?
I cannot answered definitively ...it is only my opinion for sure...
But on "relatively ordinary" analog system at relatively low cost, with low embeddings controls in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical working dimensions, the relatively low cost digital system in the same embeddings conditions will sound often more detailed or more "cut up" which is not a pure positive fact, ( timbre is not a simple matter) but this digital system if the dac is well chosen can be made with improved embeddings controls very organic sounding tubelike more and will beat the relatively low cost analog system...
It takes high value analog system to beat digital actual one in the same embeddings conditions.... Too much money to contemplate...( i trust Mike deLavigne impressions about that )
But anyway these discussions analog/digital are way less important than the three embeddings control but this seems impossible to be understood by many ... 😁😊
I tested this difference between analog/digital sound with one of my friend analog and digital system.... Then i could imagine the huge difference, way over this difference between some analog/digital separate systems, made by the three embeddings control method...
But a method is not an easy upgrade solution ...And somebody not owning a good acoustic room and no vibrations control, and no house electrical control cannot imagine the difference at all...He then contemplate upgrade between analog or digital to be a very important upgrading solution ...It will be a costly one in most case...
It was more difficult to figure out embeddings controls , not in money in my case, but with my time...But the end results is so huge than upgrading make me afrais and smile at the same time...
Audiophile experience is not an engineering choices dependant fact mostly nowadays, with all these equivalent good design available, it is mostly acoustic and psycho-acoustic knowledge ( vibrations controls and electrical controls are almost as much as important )...
I’ve recently upgraded both my digital and analog front ends to what I’d consider my “end game” status. The analog rig (excluding ‘accessories’ like phono stage, cover, RCM, etc) is about 2-2.5x the digital $ to achieve comparable SQ level.
I am not convinced that certain elements such as macro dynamics or detail retrieval are equivalent, but at this level I do enjoy the analog side more. Just more ‘musical’ to my ears.
It is completely dependent on your components. While in the past analog provided a definite advantage that could not be duplicated… so there was an “analog” and “digital” sound, and resolution wise analog just blew away digital.
All that is different now. Depending on you price range and components ala,go and digital can sound exactly the same of one can exceed the other.
I currently own the best system I have ever owned. I carefully crafted it in light of my decades of experience pursuing the high end. Both the analog and digital ends have exactly the same sound quality (see my UserID). This is by having the same brand and level of Audio Research amp, preamp, Phonostage, and DAC. Also, I carefully chose my cartridge to reflect my preferences as far as sound quality.
Both the analog and digital have very very similar levels of detail. The recording would determine if one sounded better than the other. Recently I upgraded the tone area and sub chassis on my turntable. This allowed the turntable to pull ahead on many recordings. But if I am not paying attention I can perk up and be amazed at the level of detail, thinking it is the turntable, and find it is streaming. This allows continued happy surprises from both sides.
If I was downing this again… this would be my goal… well, if I was starting now I would skip analog. Although at inexpensive levels… say systems <$10K, analog is a real bargain. And if you have absolutely no budget restraints in system >$250 K you need to spend quite a bit more on digital to equal the performance of analog. But in between these you can choose the same performance or adjust one better than the other.
It seems with the best audiophile records there is much less of a difference between analog and digital. They’re almost identical. But that’s not true with the majority of records on my system.
My digital consist of an Innuos Zenith mkIII and Chord Qutest connected by Shunyata Alpha USB. Streaming Qobuz and a lot of purchased hi res files, some DSD and ripped CD’s that were ripped by the Zenith. So about $7500 investment.
My analog is a VPI Prime 21 with Hana ML and Manley Chinook SE II so ~$9000.
If I compare lets say Nora Jones - Come away with me, Analogue Productions pressing to the DSD version of that same album. To me the digital is dynamic, precise and clean. However, compared to my analog setup, the bass is further extended, like bass notes on "turn me on" is just amazing on vinyl, further extended and reaching far into the room. But the layers and layers of added depth to the vinyl are just amazing and makes the digital sound flat. Her voice is just so much more "in the room" on vinyl. So for "my taste" I prefer vinyl.
ghdprentice - you are a bit hasty declaring that this is "completely dependent on your components". It depends on the analog and digital formats too. Some of us hear problems with digital formats compared to analog, even if there are hassles there too.
jmphotography - same thing in my system. LPs still win. And I find the originals are often better than remasters. More "here".
As usual a +1 @ghdprenticeI came back to vinyl about 20 yrs ago and was surprised how close a <$1K TT and <$1K phono preamp came to my digital and often bested it. I've moved up quite a bit since then and actually my vinyl rig is much more costly than my Theta Miles CDP. But I'm often surprised how close the Miles comes to the vinyl with certain recordings. However the Miles is tweaked a bit also which brought it up quite a bit from pure stock.
That said, the Miles is also known as THE R&R CDP due to its abundance of bass punch which is necessary for Classic rock to sound good. This is what I listen to mostly and I get that punch with analog but not with all digital. The bass is often there but not the punch or driving force which is what a rhythm section is supposed to add for R&R. i'm not sure that is the goal in female vocals or jazz. So good clean digital without the glare may be the better for the typical audiophile music. But IME It took several digital players to get the sound I was looking for. Now the Miles is getting old and I'm trying to stream. As for Dacs, I think my safest bet is probably the Yggdrasil since it is supposedly the Theta Gen 5a on steroids.
If you’re up for it, try a nice tube DAC to bridge the gap between digital and analog systems. While Qutest is nice, I believe you can do much better under $2K. Couple of suggestions, check out DAC’s from MHDT Orchid and Border Patrol.
I have six times more money on the analog side and on my system the analog is more musical with more presence. DSD stored locally is wonderful, but the same material on a good pressing is better..but that assumes that I have the funds to buy the album, it is available and is a good pressing.
My experience is that once you cross a certain threshold, analog sounds better.
My digital is Emm, my analog is VPI. I haven’t had much need to upgrade my digital. But my analog is probably twice as expensive as my digital. Both sound great but the analog has a more realistic sound. It’s more “defined” as well.
I tried a regular entry level turntable in my exact system, sounded dull and vague and missing bass notes by comparison. I don’t believe analog is baseline better than digital.
it’s easier to get your digital to sound great rather than analog. IMO.
At 16 bits, the 'etching' you hear is distortion caused by the limitations of 16-bit digital. At 24-bits, it is actual detail that even the best analog has a hard time duplicating. I recently picked up a pristine copy of Jesse Winchester's 'Let The Rough Side Drag'. It is everything that analog promises, sweet, spacious and invting. My CD copy, by comparison is hard and flat, not really enjoyable sonically. For both, the performances and the songs are amazing. I would love to hear a 24-bit remaster from the original master tapes, but I'm not holding my breath. And that's the problem. For much of the catalog from the mid-60s to mid-80s, 24-bit remasters simply aren't available for all the usual reasons - financial, logistical, and technical. So, we're left with only the analog pressings or first generation digital, most of which simply aren't very well done. Newer originals, mostly 24-bit digital, suffer far less and when down-converted to 16-bit CD and can sound quite detailed, but without a proper analog master for comparison, who's to say which might be better. Kind of hard to find in any event.
Vinyl vs. CD on my system is a toss up depending on record. Slightly different presentation, both fully satisfying. Streaming a grade below because I do it from android cell phone via wifi on tidal hifi due to lack of computer in house of stereo system. However, still plenty satisfying and a fantastic way to find out what I want to buy on CD or vinyl without throwing money away on crappy records! To think that only 3 months ago I thought I would never stream... I am now certain that a direct ethernet connection to a high tech router would bring it right up to the level of vinyl and CD. BTW the bluesound node N130 was the catalyst for me vs. the zen which I quickly returned.
It feel it depends on the source material. I have vinyl that will make the hair stand up on your neck. I also have digital files that will do the same. I also have both digital and vinyl that sound like crap! When you get your system tuned the way you like, it’s really about the source material.
These type of general questions are never completely answered. So much comes down to the phono stage and cartridge. Any component can be altered to sound how you prefer it for your ears. Resistors, capacitors, chokes, etc.
Vinyl CAN sound superior to anything digital but you'll have to spend a lot more to get to that level. Then, a 180 gm record is about 3 or 4 times the price of one month of Qobuz.
I have both excellent sacd player and transport dac combo, when I play sacd disc , I felt why did even invest good amount of money on analog? But when I played my analog set up, that’s when I feel there is a good reason why I like analog. I both like the format, but if have time to seat , I listen to my vynil.
For reference, I have a highly resolving system by almost any standard, but am also a design engineering working (as a side gig, and creative outlet) int he field both with branded and contract designs.
Digital systems, so long as they have no major flaws, will have far more details than ANY analog system. IN THEORY. 96 dB signal to noise means the smallest signal can be 1/60,000th the size of the loudest. That defines the level of detail before noise overwhelms it. Even in a great turntable/vinyl,the noise floor will be 70 dB at best, which is ~ 1/3,000th. No i did not miss a zero or decimal point.
Before you start throwing stones at the egghead engineer who doesn't listen, i know full well and realize that there are lots of things in analog that sound better if and only if the system is good enough. But make no mistake - you are heading mostly the failings of the digital mastering process, or of some cheap-ass DAC, or, very often you are sadly hearing the results of a recording deliberately made bright and shrill to overcome heading loss (Pete Towshend was famous for this) or the failings of tape and other elements in the recording and playback chain - AM radios int he early days, boom boxes int eh 60s. There are some fascinating your tube videos with recording engineers about artists over-ruling good engineering advice for more ""pop" and "presence".
Then there are the euphonic vs dissonant distortions. Many analog distortions are hamonically related and sound warm. Case #1: tubes. Most digital failings are harmonically unrelated (read up your music theory folks) and sound like crap.
So we have tow sets of sonic issues here that can easily become confused as wel listen. Is that material the record misses? Or a distortion? Or valid material from a really messed up recording from some old hearing-impaired rocker? or something else.
I suggest hearing digital from a great, old analog recording, well mastered (interestingly, most will be red book, not HD) such as the old verve, blue note or Mercury stuff. Play it on a very good DAC, with a well isolated USB source. That will lack analog euphinics but will be far more detailed, tighter bass, blah, blah. I didn't say you will always LIKE it better. My opinion: many DACs are amusical as are many systems. I have a filter designed for my "it may hit the market some day" next gen product with a filter to fight this that i plan to call the "de-nastifier" :-)
I suggest hearing digital from a great, old analog recording, well mastered (interestingly, most will be red book, not HD) such as the old verve, blue note or Mercury stuff.
I have to say you nailed it with this observation. This has precisely been my listening experience. Many of the jazz labels from the 1950s-1960s if remastered with care and skill will sound natural and wonderful. So much sucess is dependent on the recording itself. For an example, Contemporary Records (Old school west coast jazz label) Prestige, Riverside etc. Just to mention a few to add to your list.
Their Redbook CDs sound absolutely beautiful and engaging via my CD transport and DAC pairing. I think some digital components chase the detail aspect too much and miss the forest (Naturalness) for the trees (over emphasized artificial detail)). But without question there are some very capable and well implemented digital components that will get the job done in an exceedingly musically -realistic accomplished manner.
Looking at your components, it’s not hard to see that the SQ may not be converging as between digital and analog as you may wish.
What you haven’t told us is which sounds more to you like real instruments in real space. After all, that's the real test. I’m guessing from your various posts that you listen to unamplified music a lot.
I do find enough convergence in my own set-up that it is hard to choose for SQ. But the advantages on the digital side are undeniable.
Highest resolving and natural systems I've heard were multiples of $100k, practically that much on vinyl setup alone. Those systems and my aural memory of them has long been the reference for my home systems. IME not extremely difficult to get pretty high levels of resolution, transparency from digital, the issue is attaining the same level of natural timbre, timing, spaciousness that I've heard with the very best vinyl. At the level of vinyl I'm speaking of you're getting every bit and more of the resolution and transparency of digital, but you also get a certain feeling of relaxing into the music along with the extreme resolution/transparency. While digital is closing rapidly on this front, I still think some work needs to be done.
Another issue with determining a general sense of digital's potential is how highly variable streaming setups can be. Streaming noise floors and systematic induced jitter may hinder dac potentials. I fully expect with further innovations in streaming hardware and software, digital will continue to close the gap on the finest vinyl setups.
As for my own vinyl setup, I fullly expect I'll never reach the level of vinyl reproduction I'm talking about here, digital is the future for me.
Although objectively the space around the instruments is better and sharper with digital, I can’t say it sounds more real than records. I get a fuller sound and more sense of involvement listening to records. And, paradoxically, a wider soundstage with records as well.
‘So, it’s a tossup.
My preamp has the ability to run both a standard rectifier and full wave rectifier. I tried the standard one first then tried the full wave. I initially preferred the standard rectifier. It sounded more detailed/etched...cleaner? Actually sounded digital-like.
The full wave rectifier sounded smoother, softer and less etched and detailed. I put on a familiar track and note carefully listened to the sound and every bit of high detail was present in the full wave rectifier. It just had a level of density and smoothness that the standard rectifier didn't.
After some time, I realized the full wave rectifier was better for me.
For me, LPs are like this. In my system digital is quite good sounding and sometimes better sounding than my LP playback system. But overall, with digital, I'm never alarmed by the realism during certain musical moments. I only get those occasional surprising moments with LP... despite the many issues (noise, pops etc).
I totally concur that CDs made from tapes of the’50’s and ‘60’s sound more natural than anything. This is true in classical as well as Jazz.
‘But the LP’s from that period actually (usually) sound better.
Depends on level of comparable components. If the level of analog tract of your system is relatively same level with components of digital tract, theoretically the analog will win cause signal path is shorter and less dependable on all bunch of decoding and filtering processes.
In the early ‘80s I shared a house with an amateur recordist who had a collection of tapes made on a modified ReVox A77 with a dbx 224 compander NR unit. They were documenting a local orchestra that was very good, and the recordings were totally uncompressed live to 2 track with the best Nakamichi Tri-mic Omni capsules. These tapes were FAR better sounding than any commercial LPs even played on my SOTA Sapphire with Dynavector Ruby and PS Audio preamp, which was pretty good then. Then he switched to a Nakamichi PCM processor and Betamax using the same front end. Remarkably little changed. We even did a live vs. digitized event with a chamber ensemble and there was no definable difference.
BUT, when CDs were compared to LP very few were preferred to the vinyl. This using a Nakamichi OM5 II player. Something in the corporate production process was detracting from the quality possible with even Red Book digital. Things have improved, but alas my hearing has not!
It's hard to wrap my mind around a space being sharper. Perhaps you mean that the edges of notes are more distinct on the digital side. While you use an excellent phono cartridge, a MM does soften things up a bit compared to a low output MC. But then you'd have to compensate for its lower output.
By your own description your analog side outperforms your digital side in ways that are important to you. Most of your system is shared by both sides. However, if you read Goldensound's review of your DAC it sounds very much like what you've described. My personal bias is to look directly at hardware. In analog you have, IIUC, an excellent phono stage with tubes and powered with an LPS. On the digital side, once you get by the digital manipulation, you have an analog section consisting of op-amp chips. These typically have a lot of feedback. And it's powered by a switch mode ps. I think you can do far better on the digital side.
‘But the LP’s from that period actually (usually) sound better.
To an extent I agree, but again definitely exceptions existed. When I had a turntable I often compared records and CDs of the same titles. In some cases the LP was better sounding. In some cases they were pretty much equal. On a few occasions the CD sounded better than the corresponding LP. So in my experience it seems that the recording’s quality is as big a determining factor as is the recording format.
It’s not that the space is sharper, it’s, as you say, the notes are more distinct in digital. As far as being able to do a lot better on the digital side, the representation is very natural, just not as rounded. If anything, it’s objectively more real sounding, less idealized than analog. The addition of the Benchmark DAC really made my system come alive. The coordination of the the tubed and recapped Conrad-Johnson preamp with the very accurate Benchmark really is an ideal match.
The novelty of the Sutherland phono preamp has just reawakened my interest in analog.
theoretically the analog will win cause signal path is shorter and less dependable on all bunch of decoding and filtering processes.
Uh, no. You pick one process without discussing the other - the retrieval of music from squiggly grooves, conversion to an EMF, filtering out of subsonic and supersonic interference, noise and distortion inherent to the plastic qualities of vinyl. You don't get to pick and choose what you pay attention to.
And since most albums are now mastered digitally, even your shorter path is not necessarily valid.
Given the fact we have had CDs since the 80’s and DACs exist along side analog ....we all have the best of both worlds. Life is grand. It’s like having a Ferrari and Lamborghini in your garage and asking which is best??? You can drive either one of them because they are both THERE.
Here is the kicker.
Can you get good sound from a budget analog system? yep
Can you get good sound from a budget digital system? yep
Can you get great sound from a high $$$ analog system? yep
Can you get great sound from a high $$$ digital system? yep
And you can add a well sorted out digital streaming source to this list. Numerous ways are available to achieve excellent home audio sound quality. We as music lovers can choose which ever source approach we desire. And having one doesn’t negate the others at all.
Charles agree+++, just appreciate what’s out there.My friends loves streaming, they don’t have vynil, not spinning cd at all..But they are happy, only when they come to my place here my SA 10 And SME tt And Icon ps3 phono preamp, they said they are amaze, but they love the convenience of streaming.
Weird to have this discussion in 2022. Should be obvious digital is a far superior formar. Should also be obvious that the final recorded product is far more important and why we often prefer the vinyl version. Then again what poorly setup vinyls systems are covering up other flaws :-)
Audiophiles can't handle the truth though, that's why most don't even try to get to the bottom of the issues they perceive they are having. Strange hobby. It's like running a 12 second quarter but telling yourself every day you ran a 10.5 :-)
The truth is any sound/musical experience, is not only related to a format, but to acoustic/psycho-acoustic conditions specifically created for example for this turntable or for this dac in an idealized room adapted for each one ... Which is the better?
Then because each experience with any specific system will differ at all price scale, and will differ much in different embeddings working dimension, it is up to anyone choice...
Sound engineering is an art based science...Not only a technology.
I prefer digital, for practical reason , and in low cost system the difference between the two seems minute one to me...
But it was very difficult to buy a good low cost dac for my ears.... I was lucky....
«What is the sound of an unconnected off dac out of any room ? Sure it is perfect sound»- Anonymus engineer
Often stated here is that between Vinyl or analogue which sounds 'natural', but what 'natural' do you mean. I had a hifi nut professor at uni who I kept in touch with for some years. To him his Klipsch speakers, Leak amplifier and Garrard 401 / SME sounded 'natural', it never did to me. What he meant by 'natural' was how that system sounded. Everything else was not 'natural'. The guy at Zero Fidelity coined a phrase, "which fake do you want". All hifi is fake even the very best, and I have listened to $500K worth and it is still not at all like live, in my mind actually much better, the live experience is better but not the sound. So which is the best fake 'natural'. The one you like. To me the slightest pop or crackle on vinyl total ruins the experience, the slightest sound of a mis track stops me listening to the music, so no vinyl for me I'm afraid. Is digital perfect? Yes its perfectly digital playback, you may enjoy perfect vinyl playback, just enjoy the fake you like best, or both if you like the difference.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
