More convinced of analog than ever


Wednesday night I went to my local high end shop's "Music Matters" open house, which featured six meticulously set up listening rooms highlighting the best and brightest offerings from Wilson, Transparent, Audio Research, Ayre, Magnepan, Peachtree, B&W, Classe, Rotel, etc., with factory reps to introduce their products and innovations.

There were unmistakable improvements in reproduction of redbook CD, with jitter reduced to near zero, and holographic reproduction of images, soundstages, and the minute signals that indicate instrument resonance and hall ambience.

And yet... and yet... when the demos shifted from redbook to the new downloadable hi-rez digital formats in 24/88.2 and 24/96, there was an unmistakable jump in resolution around the edges of the notes, of sounds swelling, resonating, and decaying, of greater verisimilitude.

But compared to the turntable demos, I'd say the 24-bit digital got me about 80% there, whereas LP playback closed the gap completely. Once the LPs started spinning, there was a collective relaxed "aaaahhh" that went through the audience. It wasn't because of dynamic compression. Far from it, the Ayre prototype turntable was strikingly dynamic with a subterranean noise floor.

The sense of ease and relaxation I attribute to a sudden drop in listener fatigue. The LP-source music had so much more of what makes music musical. We didn't have to work nearly as hard to rectify the ear-brain connection as with even the best of 24-bit digital, which was still significantly better than redbook. The redbook playback always reminded me that I was listening to "hi-fi," even when played through multi-thousand dollar players from ARC and Ayre.

Even my local Brit-oriented Rega/Naim dealer asserts that the latest CD players rival or exceed LP playback.

I say nay.

What say you?
johnnyb53

Showing 3 responses by applebook

free recording AND playback? Digital recordings are inherently flawed. Even the best original digital recordings are dithered and filtered, omitting and filling in information of the original analogue soundwave because analogue to digital converters simply cannot capture non-bandlimited soundwaves that are complex like orchestral music. 30 IPS reel to reel never had this inherent problem of excluding spatial and minute information like minor changes frequencies of many instruments and voices.

Take these flawed digital recordings and then convert the digital signal back to analogue, and you have even more information missing, then filtered in by 1s and 0s.

By the way, no DAC in the world is almost without jitter. The Benchmark DAC1 is known to be one of the best at jitter rejection, and its measurements are still over 100ps (nowhere near "jitter-free"). The world-class Linn Klimax measures over 200ps.

Also, for anyone who thinks that the format doesn't matter much, have a listen to the SACD versions of great analogue recordings and then listen to them on vinyl. Use any $10K SACD player and any good $5K TT. If you think that the analogue system isn't more detailed, resolving, and doesn't have better 3-D imaging, and more life-like timbre, then you really should just listen to digital and not bother with this "debate" anymore.

For those of us who primarily listen to music that was originally recorded on master tape, vinyl delivers the best sound quality, period. Those of you who listen to newer recordings that are released simultaneously on digital and vinyl, then the differences will be subtler and will perhaps even favor digital because the original master recording was digital.

I was born in the digital era and never knew a world without computers, but pine for the days gone by when sound was not delivered to our ears in 1s and 0s.
I do not understand why audiophiles would want to "needledrop" their vinyl. Even the studio CD versions of some great master tape recordings are inferior to vinyl, so when you make your own conversion (with consumer-level ADCs) from vinyl to digital, you cannot possibly expect it to be good enough compared to vinyl --unless you have low standards.

A good engineer in a million-dollar studio, with million-dollar ADC and DAC set-ups, cannot match vinyl playback when he converts master tape recordings to CD. An average person "needledropping" vinyl onto digital is just amazingly low-fi.

The CD versions of most recordings should be far superior to "needledropping." After all, the CD versions at least come from the master tapes or second generation digital (or) analogue sources, being fed by the best ADC and DAC gear available.
Both formats are pretty much necessary for most modern audiophiles. Only folks who listen to nothing but oldies can live on vinyl only. I think that CD can sound excellent with correctly matched gear and a quality CD production; SACD is even better, and the future for digital is ridiculously high bit-rate formats on Blu-Ray.

Maybe one day, digital will finally overtake vinyl, but for now, the black plastic platter remains my choice for ultimate fidelity, especially with regards to classic rock, jazz, and classical recordings from the '60s to the early '90s.

The surprising thing for me is that in my experience, even current digital releases sound more detailed and resolving on vinyl than on CD --with comparable digital and TT as sources.