Having just obtained some high quality analogue components, I want make some comments on the character of both analog and digital.
First of all it’s very difficult to speak of analog in general. Records vary widely (indeed wildly) in sonic character and quality. Digital recordings are much more uniform. When you play a digital file you more or less know what your getting. Of course some sound better than others, but there is a consistency of character. With records, it’s the Wild West. Variation in SQ and character are rampant.
Therefore it becomes very difficult to make generalizations on which categorically sounds better.
I hear ya! I actually believe that we’re on the same page. I probably should have expressed my comments differently. When I said the topic of digital versus analog had become tiresome and stale I did not mean it as a way to suppress further discussion.
That is the whole point of these audio forums, lively and interesting (Hopefully) exchanges. Over the years these forums have served me well. I have found them for the most part entertaining and informative. Interactions with others has certainly expanded my knowledge base and level of awareness.
Perhaps it was my mood at the time, but I felt, here we go again with this digital vs analog stuff. I did not intend to be dismissive of opinions and perspectives of others. Carry on gentlemen. 👍
Charles, yeah, you’re probably right; a little (?) hyperbolic of me. I suppose that feeling that there is a “problem” at hand is not necessarily getting bent out of shape. Maybe it’s me that gets bent out of shape at the frequent complaining about expressed opinions that differ from our own; as if not expressing an opinion/perspective is some sort of expression of a held higher ground. It bothers me because I think it’s a shame that many audiophiles at not more open to others’ opinions/perceptions. Counterproductive.
How is this topic different than the “cables make/don’t make” a difference” debate? Countless audiophiles feel that cables make an important difference in a system. Yet, there are still some who insist that it’s not true. How egocentric. Being more openminded is the way to a better appreciation of the very topic, even while confident in what we hear. As they say, you can’t prove a negative. IOW, if you don’t hear it …….
So, let’s all take a deep breath and not get bent out of shape because someone’s opinion is someone else’s truth.
Agree. But who here got bent out of shape? At least I did not detect this. Just seems various opinions and impressions were openly expressed as one would expect on an open audio forum. Certainly not a big deal.
In continually upgrading my digital I'm hearing much greater convergence towards analog. Digital moving towards analog characteristics, I'm not hearing any of the negative characteristics commonly attributed to digital.
The answer is simple, be confident in your perceptions. One’s perception can be one’s truth. Why should it bother anyone that someone else may have a different perception of what truth is? Good grief, we’re talking about audio, not world hunger.
Now, more to the point, I feel that digital and analog have intrinsically different sonic characters. To my way of thinking and given the dramatically different approaches to solving the same “problems” it is inconceivable that they wouldn’t have intrinsically different characters. The better the examples of each approach, the more subtle the differences; but they are still there. We are each particularly sensitive to different aspects of recorded sound for a variety of reasons. For me, it’s tonal texture and micro dynamics, for someone else it may be something different. We are each seduced by excellence in the areas that we tend to focus on, and tend to be forgiving of problems in areas that we don’t care about as much; areas that may be deal breakers for someone else.
So, let’s all take a deep breath and not get bent out of shape because someone’s opinion is someone else’s truth.
You make an excellent point. Our subjective opinions are mere reflection of our level of commitment and experience. I said it all along, The devil is in the details. In my case, for past 3-5 years, I was laser focused on pushing my digital to where it is today without even realizing that my digital has long surpassed my vinyl setup. Now that doesn’t mean that I no longer enjoy Vinyl, it just that my digital is now so much better in terms of connecting me to music that it is no longer about the source or a format. Once you get to this level of perfection with your choice of source, Vinyl or Digital; the only thing left to do is just feed your system with best possible recordings, sit back and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
Opinions are not the problem, problem is judgements posed as an objective truth. Vast majority of us who have both digital and analog setups may not have optimized one to same extent as other, this colors our opinion. One should state as such, in my case digital superior to vinyl, I've never suggested digital objectively superior to vinyl. Fact is best audio system SQ I've heard has been vinyl sourced, I've also never suggested vinyl objectively superior to digital.
Argument? Difference of opinion perhaps, but no argument.
Let’s not look for one where there isn’t one. Having said that:
**** Therefore it becomes very difficult to make generalizations on which categorically sounds better. ****
You did bring up the issue of which sounds better, rv 😊. I don’t believe it is all that difficult; or am I not allowed to express that opinion given the topic of the thread? I am good with having what is fact for me, remain opinion for others.
When I brought up the issue it was NOT my intention to determine which format was better, merely to compare them. I guess, however, it was inevitable that an argument would ensue.
I completely agree that both formats are capable of excellent sound and I do agree that the topic gets old…. for a variety of reasons. However, preferring one over the other, or simply recognizing the differences, and they do exist, does not mean one is “depreciating” anything. It is simply an acknowledgment of a perception. More importantly, recognizing and/or acknowledgment of this in no way has to mean less appreciation of the music. Isn’t this what this hobby is all about?
So, are we to conclude that any discussion about differences in cables, tweaks and other gear, differences that are often on the same level of nuance, is pointless? Moreover, the OP specifically addresses the issue of the perceived differences in character of the two formats. So, if there is so much aversion to discussing this ussue, and no disrespect intended, the question needs to be asked, why bother responding to, even reading, the thread?
@lalitkShazam, you got it! Both capable of providing sheer bliss! Competition between my vinyl and digital setups certainly not zero sum game, total win win! I don't understand the need to differentiate, seems one would always have to be in analytical listening mode to depreciate either format.
@lalitk
I honestly don’t care to partake in analog vs digital arguments. I been on both sides and understand deeply the virtues and pitfalls of both formats. I prefer to focus on music instead of tiresome and often meaningless discussions on one format superiority over another.
Very well put. Analog versus digital and tubes versus transistors. What more can be said other than the redundant and stale back and forth comments. Purchase and own what you like and just enjoy the listening experience. Either format is capable.
I understand the difference you speak of are possibly due to differences in mastering techniques. That’s why I chose to focus on recordings that are faithfully reproduced and sourced from analog master. We all are trying to replicate live music experience in our homes. IME, a properly dialed digital or analog system can replicate that live music experience.
I honestly don’t care to partake in analog vs digital arguments. I been on both sides and understand deeply the virtues and pitfalls of both formats. I prefer to focus on music instead of tiresome and often meaningless discussions on one format superiority over another. Peace!
No. I was not one of those “golden ears”….whatever that may mean other than the sarcasm you imbue into the term. I was not there so can’t speak to any of it. I am, however, someone whose ears spend several hours each and every day listening to and as part of the sound of live acoustic instruments; and have for literally decades. I can tell you that to MY EARS digitally processed recordings, on balance, swing the overall sound of acoustic music further from the purity of the sound of live than do analog recordings. The additive character is more obvious, if of a different type. Take that for whatever it may be worth to you; if anything at all.
Are these are the same ears that were possibly duped by MoFi in believing no digital mastering used in their vinyl pressings? Experts and hard core Vinyl fans with golden ears, who claimed to always be able to hear the difference between a digital source and original tape were proven wrong.
I've said it on these pages before that it is a beautiful thing that nobody (exception noted below) who is not Australian can ever come close to naturally speaking the homogenous Aussie accent with its many nuances.
Meryl Streep came very close in the movie Evil Angels.
I’m American and have never heard Australians described as "Americans in training." Americans generally have a very good opinion of Aussies and see them as different from us and certainly not trying to be like us.
@tomcy6 Aussies beat up on Kiwis and Canadians with underhanded insults as often as they get the opportunity, just in a generally playful manner.
We are saddened to see the Australian government getting a little power hungry and recently treating our Australian friends badly, though.
Aussies still get health care like Canadians, Kiwis and the PoHMs.
The “Americans in training” is basically like calling someone unaustralian.
Which in the “Delhi School of Linguistics” “How to talk Austrians epsiode 2 Grub” youtube video, is summed up at 00:26 in.
One observation I’ve made for many years and even today, is that as volume increases at higher volumes in analog the sound opens up more, whereas in digital it tends to very slightly contract the soundstage.
Americans generally have a very good opinion of Aussies and see them as different from us and certainly not trying to be like us.
This is correct and pleasant and is as it ought to be in western Judeo/Christian culture with shared geo-political alliances.
Then there are times when us Aussies think that Americans are really on another planet and perhaps nobody can quite phrase the feeling as concisely as the Aussie actor Hugh Jackman did here.
A lot of opinions and theorizing when the answer is found in the OP’s original post itself. No mention of the obvious:
**** First of all it’s very difficult to speak of analog in general. Records vary widely (indeed wildly) in sonic character and quality. Digital recordings are much more uniform. When you play a digital file you more or less know what your getting. Of course some sound better than others, but there is a consistency of character. With records, it’s the Wild West. Variation in SQ and character are rampant. ****
Bingo! Records vary wildly in sonic character because recordings vary wildly in sonic character. This is a good thing, not a negative. The fact that “there is a consistency of character” with digital recordings is a negative, not a positive.
Both technologies have an intrinsic character. Why wouldn’t they? However, to my ears and in spite of the excellence that both are capable of, digital imposes more of its character on the music.
Hi @brianaus, It seems that you are full of generalizations today, and while generalizations may have truth in them, they’re usually not very useful.
You like vinyl. Great. I have no problem with people who prefer vinyl or listen to vinyl exclusively. I just don’t understand people who think that everyone should like the same things they like, though.
There are many albums recorded digitally that sound great. If you like any music recorded after about 1980, it has probably been digitized at some point.
You like Japanese receivers and British speakers. That’s great, but it’s not the only route to good sound. People have different hearing and different tastes, many people may prefer a different sound, believe it or not.
I’m American and have never heard Australians described as "Americans in training." Americans generally have a very good opinion of Aussies and see them as different from us and certainly not trying to be like us.
We are saddened to see the Australian government getting a little power hungry and recently treating our Australian friends badly, though.
Although this is a mostly American website, we enjoy hearing from people from other parts of the world. Unfortunately, opinions on an American website are going to be "Americo-centric" as you put it. Stick around and contribute in a positive fashion and we’ll be more than happy to hear a different point of view.
+1, digital doesn’t have the euphonic distortions typical of vinyl but can sound harsh when poorly implemented. I’d also generally recommend valve amplification with digital with its more benign higher harmonics distortions compared to silicon.
Intrigued, though with progress on class D, may obviate the latter statement
In regard to digital having more uniform sound. First off, this not true, top echelon digital equipment will expose quite wide disparities. I have wide variety of digital recordings available to me, from late 80's cd rips to post 2000 cd rips and latest high res streams. There is absolutely huge gap between those rips to later era cd rips and best quality streams.
Now, I will agree there is large differential between vinyl, I have well over 3k albums, tons of 50's-80's recordings, fair amount post 2000's. 50's, 60's era have most consistent high quality sound IMO. Starting with 70's much more multi tracking, solid state in recording studio equals much greater variability, and what sounds like records cut from 2nd, 3rd generation masters, some real crap from this era.
I'd also add less variability with modern digital is due to the remastering that's been done. I can directly compare some of this crappy 70's era vinyl to remastered streams and the streams sound much better. The remastering craze has greatly benefited digital, and newer AD converters are far superior to previous generations of these converters.
And this doesn't mean there isn't still pretty large variation with modern digital, less variability comes from the fact the weaker recordings now sound much better lessening the gap from worst to best.
Top flight digital' resolving capabilities will expose the finest differentials, homogenized digital sound is symptom of digital setup lacking resolution, noise and jitter levels need attending to.
I fear will really ruffle a few feathers with this post - as a European now living in Australia ( some unkind people call Australians- " Americans in training"), I have , perhaps a different view to contrast with the strongly Americo-centic views on AudioGon.
Digital vs Analog; yes there is a difference, but the devil is always in the detail.
Here is Digital vs Analog 101:
Years ago records were produced as AAA recordings: Analog recording, Analog Editing and Analog Mastering ( cutting the groove), using Analog 24 track Tape Recorders. Most modern Vinyl is DDD: Digital recording, Digital Editing and Digital Mastering, so when Digital gets into the recording chain all of the clarity and subtlety of True Analog is lost due the Digital Sampling used. Most CD/ Streaming is DDD: Digital recording, Digital Editing and Digital Mastering, so when Digital gets into the recording chain all of the clarity and subtlety of True Analog is lost due the Digital Sampling used.
But here is the Devil detail; There is much more variation between Analog recordings than Digital Recordings - it was much more difficult to make good Analog recordings than good Digital Recordings. To see this search out early 1970's Vinyl and listen to LP's like:
Parachute - The Pretty Things
Blood on the Tracks - Bob Dylan
1st Album - America
Abraxas - Santana
Red - King Crimson
Time and a Word - Yes
In Analog days the Engineer had much more control, now you can make Digital Recordings on your iPhone. A friend of mine has a harsh comment on what happens today: "My generation put a man on the moon, yours invented the selfie stick".
To finish - I am staggered by the $sums people spend to get good Hi-Fi ( sorry High End in Yank). Just pick good kit like Denon, Yamaha, many British Amps,good speakers like Mordaunt- Short, Tannoy, Wharfedale, B&W etc. You don't need 0% Oxygen cables, just good thick wire.
If you can't set up your system correctly then it is pointless spending $1000's on kit. For Vinyl you need to understand Cartridge off-set, Bias, Set up with protractors and Hi-Fi News Vinyl, Input Capacitance of cables and Amp.
If you find god Analog Vinyl it will give you the best sound you ave ever heard, Digital is more consistant, but always has a metallic edge, a bit like Bostonians!!!!
Was lowering sibilance a good thing for you, or did it darken things up excessively? I did see one individual had azimuth issues with his example, seems his Korf was incorrectly manufactured, free replacement corrected this. Other than this I've only heard good things about the headshell
The “horse blanket covering the speaker” descriptions always seem like a great analogy.
But I really don’t think that the cartridge resonating like a rosined up violin bow is what I want. I just wants the cartridge to wriggle from the cut track.
My analogy is that some songs were hissing like a pentacostal revival with the snakes. Now the snakes are largely gone like St. Himself, to be sure, to be sure, chased the snakes from the land.
@holmzI have yet to install any of this into system, waiting on the Thoress to arrive later this week.
Was lowering sibilance a good thing for you, or did it darken things up excessively? I did see one individual had azimuth issues with his example, seems his Korf was incorrectly manufactured, free replacement corrected this. Other than this I've only heard good things about the headshell.
I think many are looking for an absolute truth. To accept that they are different is to believe one or the other is ‘wrong’. People should get over that. I generally try to listen to music in its original source - at first. Then I try and just listen.
In my system the dynamics of analog generally overcome any concerns of a soft focus veil. What some may consider comprise others would call balance.
Very recent purchases of Audio Technica ART9XA, Korf ceramic headshell, Boston Audio Mat2, Zavfino Gold Rush phono cable and Thoress Phono Enhancer phono pre will hopefully bring my analog up to digital sound quality.
@sns How is the Korf headshell?
I put one on at teh same I switched carts, and it is either the HS the cart, or the combo… but it seemed to lower sibilance,
I find which sounds better (analog / digital file/ Streaming) depends. You clearly are a better judge than I on the nuances of specific instruments. But in some cases I find the vinyl is just less detailed than the same version streamed, sometimes the reverse. I am not sure, but it easily could be which vinyl press or what number pressing. We would have to review a lot of albums to find an average.
Alternatively, with your professional musical background you may be more grounded in exactly how and instrument should sound. I may be deaf to some of those nuances and value some other aspect.
To me, given the variability of each medium I find them on about equal footing… one shining brighter from time to time.
But happy to have you over whenever you like to continue the experiment.
With recent upgrades in my digital setup I feel no more need for further upgrades. Streaming and/or digital is capable of outstanding performance, relaxed, spacious, extreme resolution, pushes all the right buttons, both for analytical and music loving mind. Anyone who claims otherwise has not heard top flight digital.
So, being long time vinyl guy, and with well over 3k albums can't give up on analog. To compete with my digital I've had to make some major upgrades to my existing setup with Technics SP10MkII and Jelco TK850L. Very recent purchases of Audio Technica ART9XA, Korf ceramic headshell, Boston Audio Mat2, Zavfino Gold Rush phono cable and Thoress Phono Enhancer phono pre will hopefully bring my analog up to digital sound quality. I made assumption I had to go big with upgrades vs present setup to compete with my digital. I'm at point with digital where if I achieved same sound quality via vinyl I'd be happy camper.
Your digital is very close to your analog. I was stunned by your digital.
But close is only good for horseshoes and hand grenades.
You may recall my comment about hearing the fine nature of Steven Stills’ guitar.
Only on vinyl did I hear that he was playing a great old Martin. On digital it sounded great but, overall, it did not reach that level of nuanced reality.
I read many years ago and agree and still think it’s true….
“To like digital you have to stop listening to analogue vinyl.”
I find the best analogue vinyl sounds much better than digital.
the sound is relaxed and has air and ambience.
also, much pure analogue vinyl recordings from the past sound better than their recent digitized vinyl reissues. Just about all new vinyl, reissues included, are now digitized and then converted back to analogue before pressing. New cutting lathes are digital.
I hear a loss of musicality in most new reissued vinyl.
I haven’t bought any new re-issue vinyl in the last five years after being disappointed by “digital” in your face but less musical sound on several re-issues.
new music on a good dac sounds pretty good.
there is no pure analogue to compare it too.
but most music from the 50’s thru the 90’s sounds pretty bad in digital when compared to the original vinyl. I think we are stuck with crappy conversion from those early digital years.
I always thought I heard a lot of noise when hearing a needle tracking along a record groove. However, it has been many years since I have played vinyl. I need to go to a dealer to hear the difference again. I must be missing something.
Asa manufacturer I can taylor the sound of both so although there are people who have an opinion based on their experiences, all of that can be altered.
I had decent TT long time ago, but couldn’t stand pops and clicks. Perhaps it is possible to avoid them, but it is not my experience. Pops and clicks take me back to my room when I was already at the concert. As for R2R - layer to layer copying is often the problem and I could hear that. My friend worked in very large recording studio where they had separate department responsible to rewind thousands of tapes to avoid it. Many years ago they sold all the Studer tape recorders and went digital. No more rewinding silliness. Media is likely not a problem since I have few wonderful sounding CDs. CDs got bad rap from early attempts with wrong master tape frequency correction. Also, digital recording opened door to unlimited track recordings. They put microphones in front of every instrument to make sens of it later with poor results. Now they use only few microphones suspended over whole stage. Nyquist is not perfect since it applies to continuous waves only, but I doubt it makes any audible difference. I like digital for many practical reasons, but admit vinyl had its magic. I would also assume that older or very new vinyl has less compression being audiophile media. Compression is wonderful and necessary for average home system but we need less of it. I had hopes they will do it with more expensive media oriented toward audiophiles, like SACD, but greed killed the project (as it killed many other in the past).
I post very seldom but enjoy the more mature and informative responses which is why I also welcome Millercarbon back, and as I only listen to vinyl I enjoyed his comment!. Yes LP`s do vary far more in quality than digital musical reproduction however I wouldent want to think of how much I would have to spend on a digital system that gives me the same pleasure and involvement.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
