Is Digital actually better than Analog?

JMC - I'm gonna need you to review all three pages of the thread, because "digitals" answers are all there. Just for starters, review the posting submitted by D_Edwards. Once you're done, then review the rest. Our postings are facts, no name calling or rhetorical fillers. Just meat and potatoes.

I have a question...can any of the analog guys explain why they can only speak about analog, down digital and still pose as experts in on the related topic? Or is this just another "fear what you don't understand" moment?

Certainly not to offend anyone, but it’s apparent that analog is celebrated. One reason is because it somehow validates or justifies the stagnant position in the overall technological advances of your analog systems. It doesn't validate anything for anyone other than you. That’s the beauty of subjectivity though...facts just aren't important and pertinent...even in audio. ;(

I'm just a bit curious because no analog person has yet to explain why one would leave analog anyway...if digital is as bad as the consensus has spoken. Why would anyone even consider the switch, nevertheless post the question, if analog is so superior to digital? I'm only hearing and reading why each individual hasn't grasped the concept of digital. The answers are overly subjective and opinionated, nothing concrete and factual. Granted, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I would expect as knowledgeable and respected audiophiles, you have drawn your own conclusions based on fact and not "pseudo-emotional" playback, bad system planning and purchase, or a 3/4 moon in direct phase alignment with Saturn, Neptune, and the planet formerly known as Pluto.

Anyone care to explain?

Mike -

"it is a mistake to confuse preferring vinyl to being anti-digital."

I agree completely. However, I must point out that personal preference for vinyl (subjective) should not be passed as knowledge of the topic at hand, is digital actually better than analog. To appropriately answer this question, I would assume it would require knowledge of both pro's and con's of both analog and digital (non-subjective). Again like I said before, everyone has and is entitled to thier own personal preference. But how can one provide an unbiased answer unless preference is removed and factual pro's and con's are processed (facts). Intepretation of the result is then left to the question poser (subjective).

"when the market is there for better digital then it will happen (in other words; the record companies want to re-issue everything again and the technology has matured to make the delivery method cost effective......in digital it's all about the $$$'s)."

Would this constitute suffient explaination of why CD sales alone almost unreachably exceed vinyl sales, when factoring sales of CD's and vinyl outside of the perameters of "high end" or audiophile reproductions?

Re-releases can also be accomplished far more easier and cost-effective when you are taking an already digital media and enhancing its digital makeup, then taking an analog media and recreating it digitally. Would you agree?

"there are times when i am not in the mood for the additional focus and hassel of vinyl or i need to multi-task (easier with digital). on vinyl many times the music totally 'demands' my concentration and devotion."

This speaks volumes to me, care to be a little more specific, based on your experiences?

"i have personally made a commitment to having the best possible vinyl (Rockport Sirius III) and the best possible digital (EMM Labs Signature) so i have a bit of experience comnparing SOTA for both."

This mindset is the saving grace of audio. The perpetuation of both analog and digital. This is very commendable of you to maintain an open mind and optimistic outlook.

"even though i clearly prefer vinyl (it's not really even close) i totally enjoy digital."

Much appreciated but still subjective to some degree. Being experienced in both areas, can you help me understand how you came to this mindset, based on factual information and results?

"I don't think Vinyl is done getting better.....although they are closer to their optimal point than digital (hopefully digital will improve anyway)."

Agian I will agree. Vinyl isn't done...but it won't go much further. When comparing the time used for the development and advancement of digital as opposed to the time used for the development and advancement of analog, the sky is the limit for digital.

Audiofeil -

"They're both superb if done correctly."

IMO, I think this is something that should be looked at by both enthusiest of analog and digital. What is optimal for both methods? Vinyl for analog? Surround for digital? Uuhh, moving right along...

"No question that analog isn't going much "further" and digital as Yogi said "has most of its' future in front of it"."

Then I would assume for the sake of analog and its enthusiest, its good this question was raised now, and not 5 to 10 years down the road.

"I enjoy all of it and simply let the chips (no pun intended) fall as they may."

I wish I could say the same, but my budget is limited as for audio, and every penny needs to be spend wisely and optimally for performance. I can't afford to buy based on emotion or a whim. Not that you are, I can only speak for me... I can't. Realistically speaking, how many people can, beginner, advanced, novice or anywhere in between?

"As Raul says relax and enjoy the music."

When I relax, which one will relax me more to allow the original recording and artist be effectively reproduced? Hence, the question and topic at hand...even with the other questions it will no doubt prompt..."Is digital actually better than analog?"

Besides Zeal - If I were to say "Zeal..he's a joke" or "Digital sucks because you're too clueless to understand it" or "You show exactly why you made the comment you did everytime you speak" then I'm in the wrong because I have not contributed to the discussion topic.

Thank for understanding Zeal.

Zeal - No direspect intended. Please, kind sir. If your not gonna make a contribution to the thread, please refrain from making such statements.

Let me point this out, in case you haven't noticed, but your entire post did not answer the originally posted question.

"to me the 'better' or 'best' are improper to use toward art.....'prefer', 'more satisfying', 'more life-like to my ears', 'more involving'."

"i could care less about any subjective reasons"

This is where things take a turn for the grey area, because that mindset, anything goes. This is why audio is in the state of disarray its in today.

"Music is art"

Mike, music is art, very true! Music reproduction is not!! If I were fortunate enough to purchase the Mona Lisa, get this painting home, hang it on my wall and decide I don't think her smile is big enough...do I pull out the water color kit and make the smile bigger? Of course not! I'm not Picasso. He is the artist, not me. So why then would I classify the manipulation of the Mona Lisa as art? Now lets apply this to audio. If the intended recording artist purposely put in a little extra highs or edge in the recording, or kept everything smooth and melo, then why would I want to manipulate the intended recording to suite my taste. The extra highs are removed, manipulating the intended purpose of the highs, or the smoothness is imphasized, this manipulating the recording to be overly melo. Now...lets apply this to the topic at hand. Analog more times than not will manipulate the recording to fall or work within its perameters, or those set by the consumer not the artist. This is true because you can swop out parts to better suite your taste.

"my wife tells me they are better for me for some objective reasons."

Your wife is a wise woman. It wouldn't hurt to figure out those objective reasons either.

"the reasons i had sworn off getting involved in this subject again is that the whole need to find objective justifications why i like something gets in the way of the enjoyment and confuses what is important. why simply does not matter....TO ME."

Mike... the thread question was not posed directly to you, nor was it intended to be answered based on your feelings at the moment. Its not about you, its about whether digital is actually better than analog. In order to validate statements, be it for or against, you need some sort of reasoning behind your resolution. This is where subjectivity is dismissed.

"digital is a market driven product...and every new digital advance is market driven. the obvious ease of production and use of digital media and the economic force it causes are responsible for who buys what. performance audio issues drive vinyl.....and the maket for performance 2-channel audio is small (but feisty)."

Mike, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree again. Consumers don't buy CDs or vinyl for that matter because of market, ease of production or economics. They buy CD's because they want to or enjoy the artist they purchased. That being said, they want to hear what the artist has to offer on the CD, as the artist intended. Digital preserves that intent, without manipulation.

"made the brilliant observation that the sonic qualities of tube amps out-pace SS amps at a given price, until you get up into the megabuck range"

This statement is again subjective. When tube amps are tested and compared to the test results of solid state, do the tube results reveal they outpase SS amps? After all, IMO one of the few non-subjective standards to audio is testing. I can say you're wrong, and the next say we're both right. What standard can be applyed to both theories to validate some sort of factual result?

"It simply takes a lot of money before SS catches up to tubes. My guess why (and it's only a guess) is that folks have been working with tubes longer"

Which raises another question...why do all recordings have the same tonal reproductive charactoristics, even when switching tube amps? This can be proved by the battery of testing manufactors do to thier product prior to release to the public. In order to validate a manufactors claim of superiourity, they have to prove the claims via testing. Correct? This is where the subjectivity is ultimately reduced to a minimum.

"And I think the situation between analog and digital playback is similar. If you spend megabucks on digital, (Wadia, EMM, CDS, Esoteric, Aural Symphonics optics, etc) the analog/digital debate becomes moot again (assuming decent LP/CD software for each.) HOWEVER, if you spend less than megabucks for BOTH your analog and your digital gear, the analog is going to sound better than the digital for the same reason that modestly priced tube gear sounds better than modestly priced SS gear: Analog has been developed and refined for over 85 years vs. digital for barely 30. So of course a MODEST analog rig will smoke a MODESET digital rig. What the hell would you expect!"

This entire statement is again subjective. I've heard a tube based system, Dali Helicon 700, Cayin tube amp and preamp, play a CD from the Bob James Trio, and only 1 of the 12 or 13 tracks remotely close to the intended composer and producers recording. Even a Jolida tube CD player, amp and preamp setup with MBL 101 Hybirds have a very difficult time with this. And the list doesn't stop there.

Care to tackle this explaination?

Bad equipment? Each time it was explained that this is how it was supposed to sound! Come again??! Sad part about it is every other recording sounded just about the same. These are recordings I have listened to countless times, via a number of studio grade headphones and SS systems, and the quality of the reproduction sounded similar but different ie better accuracy, larger soundstage, deaper soundstage, more detail and such, depending on the quality of the setup. I'm sorry but megabucks is an excuse why analog development hasn't progressed any further than what it has. 80+ years is a long time, but nothing has changed in the last 40, and I'm being generous.

"What the hell would you expect!"

I expect the best from both a technological and perfomance stand. This requires fact and proven theories which in turn leaves no room for subjectivity. Analog, truth be told, has yet to accomplish this.

"And though I own great examples of both technologies, and enjoy them equally, I know in my heart that analog has pretty much reached the peak of its development, while digital has only begun to be explored"

One of the few non-subjective statement I have heard so far. This is why I love digital more than analog, because digital can only get better from here. Analog, in all its glory, can not advance but so much further...it at all! Even you said this yourself! And your did you reach this conclusion...factual assessment of both technologies and thier progress until this point in time. Fact!

"just to offer a single "for instance": what will happen to digital audio reproduction when 3-D optical storage becomes available? Think about it."

Digital will advance even further...the very structural foundation of 3-D optimal will no doubt be digital. In fact 3 dimensional was in development since the 60's and 70's and is advancing even as we speak. Its called surround sound. But thats another conveluted discussion in itself!

"I believe it's up to individuals to inform themselves on the merits and then make a personal value-judgement as to how much (extra?) time and money they're willing to allot to a particular pursuit. And no one else should question their decision."

Nsgarch - We are in agreement on this point. It should also be noted the in order to make the best overall decision, one should be willing to examine both sides of the "fence." If your decision is analog, then great. However, if you decision is analog because: 1)digital is not the audiophile way, 2) I can't completely comprehend digital as I can analog, or 3) a bunch of audio guys said I should do analog because they don't care for digital; then there is something wrong.

Its all about making the best, educated decision based on the full scope of things, not just one side. This requires one to look past the warm glow, welcoming rhetoric or lack of understanding. This further requires one to investigate the pros and cons of all aspects of both sides. Without this, its just follow the lead or Simon says.

And on that note, I'm done.

Artizen -

"But we still don't know if Digital is actually better than Analog."

Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary.

Glad you've come to your own conclusions. : ))

Paul -

Its done. Everyone else is convinced. From here on out, you're only convincing yourself. Let it go!

Artizan - Sorry the analog experts couldn't answer your question. Three whole pages and still no definitive answer. I do feel bad.

"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

This statement should not be taken partially or out of context. It is a complete statement. Referencing one part without the other is even more unfortunate.

"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.

Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!

It's just not for music."
JMcGrogan2, Raul and everyone, for that matter - This is what’s wrong with me. This very statement and those like it. This statement concludes that it’s just not possible. In fact, many have said it in previous threads. However, this statement is a matter of opinion. Nothing against that, at all!

My argument is "what if it can be for music; what if it is for music? What if you can configure the system and processing to accurately reproduce the music to match the original recording?" I have yet to hear anyone ask how! Ok, so you don’t care, but what about those who do? What if some other than yourselves wanted to learn something new or just see what the stir is all about? What if someone wanted to honestly give surround a shot?

On the flip side, what happened to trying to answer the original question? Then again, I guess I’m getting side tracked. Go figure.

My problem is I've had the opportunity to hear a surround system, valued at approx $6K, namely D_Edwards', that brings out the best in 2 channel music, every single CD and digital track it played. So much that it surpassed multiple $150k+ LP systems, and numerous other high end 2ch systems that played a different version of the same recording. These systems where just like system many of you own. Many also exceeded your systems. I have nothing against those systems. Again, to each his own.
But whatever happened to listening for yourself? Whatever happened to taking the time to listen? Isn’t that what the hobby is all about?

Sure I only have my opinion that surround is better. But my opinion isn’t based on opinion. So then why not find out to see why "I'm wrong." OK, so you don’t care, but, again, what about those who do? Instead, the name calling and attempts at mud slinging begins. WHY? What was the point? What did it accomplish?

Truth is gentlemen, the research has been done. If you choose not to accept it, that’s fine. But that doesn't negate the fact that it was done. Another truth is the information is in front of everyone, available to be tested and investigated individually. You may have to do you’re your own research. However, no one has made an effort to do this. This is one of the many sad parts.
Is anyone prepared to listen? Is anyone prepared to test D_Edwards’ thoughts and findings for themselves? Is anyone even willing? If not, then how can you say “your wrong and I’m right” until you all are willing to prove why and how? Otherwise, audio is chasing its tail for the next 5-10 years.

I’ve been serious about audio for about 3 years now. Yes, only three years and no I’m not so new that I don’t know anything or any better. I’ll establish my point further in a minute. Anyway, I’ve been researching hard and met a guy who hipped me to DIY. He was my reference for a while. I learned so much from him. Then I meet another guy who introduces me to D_Edwards. Since then, I’ve been forced to think outside the box and for myself. I’ve been forced to conduct trial and error and been shown what to do and why, all at the same time. This led me from 2CH initially (yes, I did start out with 2CH) to MC surround. This forced me to pursue the truth of audio, not just an opinion.

Gentlemen, I apologize for allowing my enthusiasm to overtake me at times, but this is who I have become. An isolated, pursuer of audio truth within the realm of audio reproduction, be it 2Ch and MC. That’s my problem!

This is one of the many things I’ve learned in 3+ years.

“What is a phantom speaker?”

It’s the room. How? In the shortest way, your speakers emit full range frequency from both the front and rear. There are speakers that emit so much that the rear cabinet frequency reflection, combined with the rear wall, reverberates the reflection around the room. Many times, causing the reflection to bounce off of the opposing rear wall, so much that it gives the illusion of rear channels/speakers. This explains why many 2Ch guys say that they can achieve the same results as a MC system, from only 2CH’s. But from a technical/theoretical outlook, aren’t you listening to 3 speakers? ; )

On that note, let the rebuttals and name calling begin!
Happy Listening Gentlemen. This time, I am really done!

Shadorne - very well put. Bravo!

Raul - Due to reasons beyond my control, in order to discuss the topic at hand further, shoot me an email.

Thanks