Poor men who don't realize the digital is a better format than the analog one.
There have been many many 33.3 RPm LPs which were DIGITALLY mastered.
- Why? At the time, turntable music was still dominant than CD players. So, recording companies had to make LPs but they did know the DIGITAL is both theoretically and practically superior to the ANALOG systems. In order to improve LP's SQ, they included some of digital tech, period!
- I do listen to LPs still now. Why, there is no CD version of my LPs.
- If you cannot believe CD is better than LP, then your digital system is of low quality.
- Most Americans do like bass-emphasized music listening, which means they don't know actual live music produces a lot of high-pitch, etching sound (like CD playing).
|
A lot of that so called etching is too lively a room that they then fix with a soft analog system. They take an aspirin when they really need antibiotics.
|
Poor men who don’t realize the digital is a better format than the analog one.
There have been many many 33.3 RPm LPs which were DIGITALLY mastered.
@r27y8u92 Nice to see someone else gets it.
The fact is digital is the superior sounding format, but it’s not without its flaws. There are just fewer of them.
|
Realistically what flaws?
|
When the technology was new some digitally remastered LP's were poorly done. It's less of an issue nowadays, loudness wars not withstanding.
|
It use to be one had to spend alot of money to get digital even close to analog.With all the advancements in dacs including lower cost its the opposite now....but as they say there are 3 reasons why analog is inferior..1/ snap 2,/crackle 3/ pop...sorry analog guys but digital rules now.
|
Ultimately, the 'best' amounts to 'the one you happen to prefer'.... Digital is great, Analog is great, music is great....
|
Personally the system set up really differs the argument here.
Digital sources can be many things, just from my personal experience,
CD vs Vinyl => sub 5,000 USD vinyl set up couldn't beat CD system.
Streamer vs Vinyl => sub 5,000 USD streamer generally sound pretty flat or dry (some may call it analytical) , anything below $1,000 USD streamer or turntable, you might be better off with digital radio.
Streamer vs CD => below 5,000 USD set up, I think CD prevails in general.
I would say, there are some products that offer standard sound quality to the market. Usually integrated all in ones can be a good start for digital and make a way up or to separates with DAC, vinyls, I can't say much since there are lots and lots of combinations that can be offered here to surpass digital components from $ 10,000.00 USD to sky is the only limit here.
But in the end, the higher you want to get, you do need a good pair of speakers to reveal the true capabilities or characteristics of your components as well.
|
Analog and digital are just sources the more sources in my mind the more music you have access to. I still keep my CDs because most sound better than high-rez downloads and many are not on music services. I keep my LPs because I bought them they are fun musical and again many sound better than my digital options and are unavailable on streaming.
|
|
Haven’t used my turn table i years. I just want to hear music and not have fiddle with records. It’s not that important that the music can sound a little better is I can listen and relax. It’s all about the music and not the front to back depth or can I hear music in the noise.
|
|
|
Thought I’d share this as it was fitting for this thread, but there’s also likely already another thread dedicated to this video about all MFSL releases since 2015 being digitally mastered…
|
It's interesting that you could take this entire thread, replace vinyl and cds with film and sensors, and post it to any similar photography thread and have it map nearly seamlessly. Technology and human passions included.
|
@lldd I have had this same conversation multiple times, love it. Just in the same way where high dynamic range in photography can sometimes enhance the initial impression but does not replicate reality in the most natural way possible. Another example is going to Best Buy to see most of the TVs fighting for attention with their HDR settings. Sometimes they get you to buy the TV but then you realize once you set it up at home, HDR is just so fatiguing. Our eyes are meant to focus on only a few things at a time, and our vision adjusts its depth of field naturally. Looking at HDR imagery for too long presents too much information that just ends up tiring us out.
|
There are two ways to get improvement.
First would be to get more of the better sound. Say upgrading cables over the white and red variety.
Second would be removing the bad, irritating sounds. Like those little speakers that boost up the bass with the annoying thump. thump to give the illusion of more bass.
So even if a system does not sound high-end (lots of "good sound") it still can be enjoyable because it doesn't have the "bad sound" to annoy you. Some hi-end you just hear too much bad with the good.
Could one reason that analog sounds better because although it may lack in "if you want to define detail as good sound" it also lacks in "bad sound"?
|
In an attempt to improve my analog side, I bought a new phono preamp and moving coil cartridge. After break-in the sound improved dramatically. It didn’t, as I expected however, surpass the SQ of my digital side. The best I can say is that on most recordings of the same material, the sound was about equal. The digital has the advantage of being sonically more consistent. Records varied much more in quality, from downright putrid to exceeding anything digital.
But, in general, I have to say in my experience, digital was more of the go-to format.
YMMV
|
It takes a while to evaluate all your components. I would say your values favor digital. The word etched is something I think of in systems focused on details at all costs. While analog can give incredible detail… this is at much higher levels of investment. Typically at your level of investment analog will win on naturalness… musicality… more so than details. Given your tastes, perhaps you would have to go for a much higher level of investment in analog. But, probably not worth it given what you value. My analog end is wonderfully detailed and musical… more detailed than my digital end. However, both digital and analog ends on my system are ~$45K.
|
As my cartridge improves the gap is becoming narrower and narrower, but, your right, I probably need a higher level of analog investment to to achieve parity.
Fortunately,I can achieve a great deal of musical satisfaction with analog
|
|
@blisshifi I use HDR all the time in nature photography. Almost always the result is positive with a much more natural look. Realistically with 13-14 stops on modern digital simple tone mapping is already enough. When you use HDR to naturally extend dynamic range you provide a more natural image which the brain interprets as natural. Natural shadow detail does not fatigue the brain. When people use unnatural HDR for artistic effect, that is fatiguing.
On TVs in store, that's not HDR, that is high contrast and saturation at artificial levels. HDR in TVs is good. Enhanced shadow detail.
|
I previously reported vinyl>>digital, but I just got a Holo May DAC DTE , AQ Earth balanced interconnects & Synology DS1522+ with fast SSD cache, fiber optic ethernet feeding my streamer. I've been streaming ripped CDs and purchased downloads. The result is amazingly musical, detailed and great soundstage. I’m shocked, but this sounds better than my analog..
|
@vonhelmholtz
+1
Yes, this is that time when depending on exactly what you get can determine whether analog or digital sounds better. A great time to rejoice as for so long digital just couldn’t touch analog at any cost level.
|
