Is Digital actually better than Analog?


I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music.
Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
musicaudio

Showing 5 responses by gregm

To further add to this erudite exchnage {:)}:
but nevertheless progress (if you can call it that) is relentless.
More like change, isn't it, in this particular case.
Or, if we wish to use the word as a verb, we may say: "as time progresses" certain processes become simpler OR more convenient (or both) with the advent and development of digital media formats". For example, recording and mastering...
Guido notes:
In some sense, the most musically satisfying reproduction system is hyperrealistic, rather than simply realistic.
That is a marvellous way of putting it (IMO, YMMV, etc, all politically correct injunctions). I would add that the flavour of hyper-realism can and does vary to a certain extent from one audiophile to another -- but particularly with fashion/latest trend in reproduction.
...what exactly is needed to make a system sound live
A reasonable simulation would be very low noise floor & very high dynamics...
...but, OTOH, I don't expect a system to sound like live music. Live music would not be my reference (as it isn't yours). Rather, reproducing the medium would be a better /more reliable and palpable reference point.

In the rare cases where a reproduction is such that it creates spontaneous involvement, there is some magic. Sometimes, when the Gods are smiling, there is a lot of energy coming out of my spkrs (relatively speaking, of course) and the effect of a live recording (even average recordings) is lovely.
Dear D
I don't think there is a "live" system to be bought:); and a music lover can be happy listening to music on a little radio... Guidocorona aptly notes in a recent posting that reproduction is "hyper"-realistic rather than "real". I would subscribe to this way of putting things!
As a reference, however, live music does allow us to know what certain instruments sound like -- a violin, for example, or tympani being struck, etc

Equip:
AS you are an audio professional, you obviously know that your equip is first rate... shortcomings, if any, are probably the result of external, rather than internal, factors.
One of these factors is the record/recording -- but we have to live with that.

Further ideas related to points you raise in yr post:

Dynamics limitations: I believe that it's necessary for a system to have dynamic capabilities exceeding the medium's rated limits.
Now, the sound comes from yr spkrs. Your spkrs should allow ~1-100dB spl swings without major audible problems in a critical range b/ween 80-12kHz. Anything that constrains that would be either upstream, or extraneous.

One of these "externals" is noise that we get through the mains and is fed into the system and of course exits through the spkrs.
Measure the system inherent noise (i.e. no music) coming fm yr spkrs at a reasonable position at reasonable volume (you may be picking up EMI). This will include ambient noise you can do nothing about, so try this at a quiet moment.

For example, I had ~35-40db (!!). Given the same, say, 100dB capability, my sound would only reach 60 -- and that, at high spl in order to go beyond the noise level. High spl means my spkrs would be close to, or reach compression. Even before that happens, my wife & neighbours will have charged in the room.

If this measurement is significant in yr case too, try out an inexpensive 20amp filter/surge protector (tripplite, for example, makes some). I had one made by a friend. Leave the magical audiophile filters aside for now. Measure the noise floor again: it could be lower by ~20dB. Basically, you have gained AUDIBILITY of ~20dB "headroom" that yr system has anyway but was buried under the noise. This is randomly called "loss of fine detail" etc, in audio-speak.

An additional trick is to use very sensitive spkrs -- horns for example. While this is a personal choice and yr ATCs are excellent IMO, I mention it as a way of introducing artefact to *simulate* the dynamics of a live event... somewhat. It can work in a small room but for a limited FR (mid & bass requires room and horns are huge).

Further helpful is a source signal amplifier with very high dynamic range -- in yr case, the phono equaliser for example.
Further upstream is the phono cartridge; excepting latecomers, these have not always been very good at dynamic levels. Fortunately for them, many recordings have been equally limited, so the problem was less acute. Please note, however, that just as many recordings of the 50's & '60s already had a quite wide dynamic range!

{Note: I'm not concerned here with linearity of the equalisation curve, etc -- just dynamic contrast in the sound and perceptible in a medium-sized (~350) room.}

The ability of each source component to correctly "drive" the load is important for minimal energy loss -- but you've already addressed that amply with yr system.

Of course, active spkrs are an *extremely* good idea... indispensable in many ways.

Finally, as we all know for having toiled endless hours, (L+R) speaker placement is primordial -- we fiddle for hours and suddenly, finally, low frequency energy appears out of nowhere... The stereophonic coupling/image is an important base for the multichannel setup too.

Finally, if you wish to use dsp, you gain control over delay and phase issues, at the expense of some resolution unfortunately. These two aspects of control are far more important than FR equalising (i.e., the act of re-equalising & re-crossing yr spkrs) IMO. But there is that as well.

Cheers
Newbee
...the rise time and, more importantly, the decay time is appropriate to reproduce the sound of a real instrument
As you say, the decay is extremely important. This is related to how well the electronics perform reproducing the medium and, in particular, to the "audible dynamic range": the sound of decay may be there -- but imperceptible due to noise, etc.
Strangely, some systems sound pleasantly "fast" and crispy (both) when there is minimum sound of decay that is reproduced. OTOH systems I've heard with considerable rendition of decay are much more involving -- and "dynamic" in the audiophile sense: the "sudden clash" is VERY sudden.

D_edwards sez
...I claim that surround is better for digital
Actually, I like the effect of well executed surround sound. Also with an image attached to it:)!
I have a 2-channel system, myself. I like the sound -- and I'd better like it: I can't afford multichannel, and the paucity available music is irksome -- although one can create a livable "surround" artefact even with two channel stuff...
But as I said, I can in no way afford such a venture.

I think that as long as we all enjoy some music, there is little reason to pontificate one way or another. I even have friends who listen in mono!