Listening to digital and analog

"On the contrary, I must adapt a different way of listening that doesn’t actively compare the two.  If one keeps the analog ideal always in mind, it makes it difficult to appreciate digital music."

It's hard to make out your premise and your argument.  How about this:  If one keeps the in-person musical experience ideal in mind, it makes it difficult to appreciate recorded music.  This would seem even more difficult but we are all here because we do appreciate recorded music.  And IMO it's not difficult at all!

"I just want to point out that you may have to listen a little differently to each in order to enjoy both"

Actually, how does one listen differently?  Can't figure that out.  As for me, I just sit down and . . . listen.

@rvpiano,

It seems to me there are two issues here.

Can I enjoy recorded music AS recorded music? Can I enjoy "Hamlet" the movie knowing it’s not the live stage performance? I think most of us here can. Some may like the analog experience more and some may like the digital experience more. That may very well depend upon their analog budget vs. their digital budget and their acumen at selecting components. I think we are now past the time when it can be said one is inherently superior to the other.  In my case, I have the luck of two fine front ends (by my standards) and am enjoying them equally--though it’s hard to deny the convenience of digital--especially if relaxation is an issue. Read on.

But you have raised the stakes to a new level. I call it "the WILLFUL suspension of dis-belief" for if a person has his wits about him he will not be fooled into believing he is hearing a live concert. One has to try, Sometimes being totally relaxed (and I’m not going to divulge how I may attain that state) I can try to believe I am there, and succeed. It may be easier with a simple recording, a solo instrument perhaps. The first note* of the Chopin first Ballad played by Moravec comes to mind. But I have done it to the Mahler 3 too.

So what I hear you saying is that on your system you find it easier to push yourself into this willful state listening to your analog side, than from your digital side. Am I getting close?

*To me it always sounds like that piano is in my room, and it’s 16/44..

There’s a similar thread over at Music and I contributed a note on this theme. A major reason that some digital listening disappoints those familiar with analog is the very poor analog section even in some of the most expensive DACs. They often compare VERY unfavorably with the "analog section" of a phono pre, which is to say, the phono pre itself. But they are there to do a very similar job.

A DAC may have a sophisticated digital section providing apparent transparency, low noise, space and dynamics to a bunch of instruments that may seem themselves to sound like cardboard cut-outs to the analog aficionado. And some listeners think these DACs are great--especially after good reviews emphasizing those digital attributes. Without providing as much in effort to the analog section though, the DAC will miss the harmonic richness and depth of sound we usually attribute to good analog.

From the point of the DAC maker, most of his potential customers may never have heard a musical instrument except through a loudspeaker. So some multi-kilobuck DACs use chip op amps costing a buck or two at the center of their analog section. Not to mention cheap switching PSs. Color me cynical.

Simply replacing chip op amps in DACs of all sorts with good discrete analog sections has become a hobby to some and a profession for others. Think of what is done modifying Oppos for ex., analog section and PS.

So, if you’re an analog person, as I am, don’t tell me of your disappointment with your expensive DAC. Look inside first. Then we can talk.

And by the way, while amp and preamp manufacturers are pleased to tell you what’s inside their cases, DAC makers often are not. Rather, they sometimes try hard to hide what’s inside. As do many of the reviewers.