I am pleased to see that at least a couple of people are sticking up for digital, even if it is done, perhaps, with tongue in cheek ... :-)
Frank |
Niacin, ... hear, hear!
I would just make the comment that what you call synergy I have found to be that combination which minimises the level of unpleasant, low level or "micro", distortion. Many people, as you say, don't seem to realise that that is what you need to do, which is of course a great pity ...
Frank |
Aplhifi, see again my earlier response. Yes, it it easier to "reproduce the soul" on vinyl, but only because it tolerates more sloppiness in the setup! You have to be more precise, more careful with digital, and a lot of the industry apparently still doesn't get "it". Slightly, very slightly askew digital can be intolerable, so if you want to enjoy "digital soul" you have to put more effort into it to get it just right ...
Actually, a very simple analogy is (appropriately!) digital versus analogue TV. Most people would agree that with good reception digital is superior to analogue. But, with slight levels of poor reception, it becomes extremely irritating to watch the digital signal; yet poor analogue can still be enjoyed and followed even when it is severely ghosting, say. I know, in many ways a poor analogy, but what I am trying to say, is that in some ways the nature of digital is that the quality of it is either on, or off; great, or pretty awful.
Frank |
Learsfool, thanks for the thoughtful response. Unfortunately, however, your guess was wrong -- I am particularly interested in achieving the results I mentioned in the very areas that concern you, "the human voice, or other acoustic instruments, such as a full symphony orchestra". I have experienced one of the world's most respected classical guitarists playing on a couch opposite me, my brother blowing on a saxophone full bore a few feet away, and a time listening to a big band in full cry, where I stepped around the typically hopeless PA setup, and stood right next to the front side of the low stage, only a few feet away from the trumpet and trombone, etc. The latter experience was magnificent, effortless and massive sound; as a test, I "shouted" at the top of my voice during a dense passage, but could not hear myself at all, while the sound from the instruments was effortlessly enveloping and flowing over me, fantastic stuff. This level of reproduction is my benchmark ...
All those deficiencies you mention can be there in setups, but, and sorry, "distortion is distortion is ...". A very key point you make is "analog has more surface noise - but this type of distortion is not embedded in the music itself, and can be listened through". That is exactly the principle that I use for making digital playback (which is what I am using exclusively) work properly. Yes, the type is distortion is "different", but can, and I repeat, can be reduced to the point of being effectively, musically, inaudible. This is nothing to do with readings someone has got on a distortion meter, they are about as useful as saying a car has been measured as being capable of 100mph, for picking which vehicle is superior on the road!
I have certainly been able to enjoy, on a digital setup, the famous climax of Beethoven's 9th with the impact I mentioned earlier, and at the other extreme, the earliest recordings of Melba, 1910's or so, and the ambience and realism of the piano accompaniment in the distance delicately and convincingly captured ...
Frank |
Sorry, silly typo's earlier ... obviously I meant " ... how can you can know when the sound has gone "astray"? How do you know ..."
Frank |
Albertporter, -- "analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital" -- I obviously wasn't in the groove (no pun intended!) when I read that, your statement does not make sense!
Each process in transferring sound from a storage medium to our ears is either A->A or D->A, that is, either analogue to analogue, or digital to analogue.
Going from digital master to vinyl playback are (at least) the steps:
1) D->A: digital goes through DAC in mastering setup
2) A->A: analogue signal drives the cutter for the stamper disc
3) A->A: cartridge mechanically vibrates a coil or magnet to create a low level signal for the preamp
4) A->A: preamp boosts signal to create an analogue signal for the power amp
and you're saying that is superior to:
1) D->A: digital goes through DAC to create an analogue signal for the power amp.
Are you saying some sort of magic is taking place in those extra A->A stages? Yes, some type of filtering is taking place in these processes, but if you want that type of change of sound to occur just add an extra box to do some processing into your home setup. Of course, some people add tube circuitry into DAC's as a means of achieving this end ...
Frank |
Albertporter, I'm sorry, it appears at the moment that you're starting to come from the direction of "conspiracy" theories, and definitely we are too far apart in our thinking. Thanks for the input anyway and cheers ...
Frank |
Albertporter, when I read your response to my earlier posting I was somewhat taken aback, and hence responded a little brusquely, I apologise for that. Following that posting by myself, I went "Back to the Future" and looked at the thread material of late '08', and very vigorous it was too! To me, the nub of it in relation to yourself was your comment: There was a time when I put all my effort into making digital right and at one time I had my system where digital and analog were very close. One day a friend who had not visited in a long time, a guy with excellent ears, listened with me and pointed out the fact that I had managed to "down grade" the analog source to make the digital warm and friendly enough to enjoy.
After that, I returned to my quest to make the music as dynamic, transparent, resolved and emotionally involving as possible and when that formula is applied, analog excels and CD falls. I can very much sympathise with your "battle", as in many ways I have gone through similar myself: the difference being that in my case I was able to reach a positive, rather than negative outcome, with what would be considered pretty ordinary equipment, playing very ordinary CD's; others have seemingly achieved similar results. I will just repeat what I have said elsewhere that I have experienced very expensive, highly tweaked, at home vinyl setups that have sounded a) stunning, and b) excrutiatingly harsh and unpleasant, so I certainly am aware how there can be two ends of the scale, irrespective of the time and money spent. The answer, to repeat myself, is system engineering, and yes, in digital it can be much harder to get it right, compared to vinyl, but superb results on that "nasty" 44.1k digital CAN be achieved. Finally, a "thought" experiment. I would suggest that your own system, in top form, be modified by the addition of a black box completely hard wired in, with a bypass switch. This would be engineered so well that it would be 100% transparent with the bypass engaged (unlike how all these DBT setups most surely are typically set up,) to yourself and anyone else you care to have listen. In the black box is a "done right" 44.1 analogue to digital converter feeding a 44.1 digital to analogue converter, engineered CORRECTLY with current technology, and, you can guess what's coming, I would seriously suggest that the people listening would find it close to impossible to pick when the extra circuitry was part of the mix ... Frank |
Alex, thanks for that set of thoughts! I agree with you, minimising phase noise is everything, but I would say the only place where it is critical is right next to the DAC chip (or discrete circuitry, Accuphase, say). The big trouble with separate transport and converter box is getting the clean clock where it is needed, and of course as you know there are many ways of doing this. I am intrigued to note that the newish Naim DAC solves the problem by having multiple, slightly different frequency crystals, so you have minimal buffering needs AND bare crystal phase noise. And, by all accounts, it can do an excellent job of the converting ...
Frank |
Tvad, actually the answer IS all 3. What makes it even more bizarre is that you can pick up the total system of someone who says answer 1, plunk it down, absolutely perfectly transported and setup identically in every way, matching room treatments, etc, in the home of someone who says answer 2, and the answer for this new setup CAN still be 2, even for the original owner if he were to visit the new location of his former system.
Why, because the house itself and every part of its environment is part of the system also! This is what can make this whole process of getting things right so very, very hard ...
Frank |
Aplhifi and Nilthepill, For me *System Synergy* = Combination of components, and accessories, and tweaking, that intentionally or by lucky coincidence minimises the level of "nasty", "micro" distortion, the bane of virtually all hifi gear. If recordings is bad or compressed no digital (or vinyl for that matter) system in the world can make that hight freq nastiness go away and make it sound sweeter Since I have experienced many times the complete opposite to that, I disagree 100%. Since there is a bit of a groove happening here, I'll throw in my bit too: seasons greetings to all those who agree and disagree with me ... Cheers, Frank |
Kijanki, when I said house I did not mean just the listening room, that's why I specifically said "every part of its environment" -- gee, I think the factory down the road just finished for the day; hmmm, I wonder if Cathy has her computer on in her bedroom; man, another one of those steamy, humid days -- see what I mean. Frankly, when a system is REALLY working properly, the listening room is totally irrelevant: if you had a real string quartet playing in that room, would it "not work" because you didn't have the right room bits sorted out ... ?
As regards synergy, see my comment earlier.
Finally, I have as much respect for vinyl as digital: I have heard stunning LP playback, and truly appalling sound coming from a quarter of a million dollars worth of such gear, supposedly optimised and tweaked!
Frank |
Kijanki, sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying ...
Frank |
Tbg, yes, classic Sinatra recordings are an excellent test for a system in good form: the orchestra should sound massive and deep, with tremendous bite and clarity in all the brass, while Sinatra's voice is superbly smooth, low key and controlled, riding easily upon that wall of rich sound. What happens what digital is "done right" ...
Frank |
Just noticed this thread has been running since the beginning of '06, really shows how this topic of analogue versus digital is such a biggy, but unnecessarily so. I have only read the last page of comments, but what stuck out was the comment by Engelgrafik that "everything that distorts in digital is like nails scratching a chalkboard", and the answer is as simple and as complex as that -- distortion is distortion is distortion.
It is relative easy to get analogue to sound "good" because the heart of it is a mechanical process; digital's heart is very complex electronics, and so the task of eliminating "nasty" distortion is much, much harder. You have to work at it and work at it, but the end result will be worth it.
My experience is that digital "done right" in a match race with analogue will most definitely be the winner, and by this I mean experiencing the "soul of music" will be able to be fully realised! But, and a big BUT, if one tiny, tiny thing is not working correctly in the digital setup then it can crash and burn, big time!
An analogy is a performance vehicle versus a comfortable, sloppy springed family sedan. The latter will always be pleasant to drive even if out of tune, but the former will be a monster, and you will hate it if something is not working right. But get it right ... then you'll prefer the performance vehicle.
A key indicator of digital working well is that there is no such thing as a bad recording, you can enjoy the "soul" of everything you have ...
Frank |
Learsfool, I would just take issue with a couple of your points, if I may ...
"objection is ... the process of digital recording and processing, and what it does to the sound in the first place, long before anyone's playback": as the only way to know what 'has been done' is by monitoring via a playback of some form, how you can know when the sound has gone "astray". How you do know that the recording hasn't been "perfect", and that it isn't the playback at the recording location that is at fault. And before you say, of course the recording engineers are using high performance, professional equipment, remember my comment about a car capable of 100mph -- it's straightforward to make a car capable of staggering speeds, whether you to want to take a ride in it is another matter!
"what is not present in a digital recording that is in an analog one" and "removes too much information": this type of comment is still made over and over again, and waves a big flag to me that says: digital distortion in the PLAYBACK!
Vinyl has a distinctive, characteristic distortion of pops, crackles and whoosh, tape has one of high frequency hiss, and digital has one of sounding like information has been lost! Granted the latter type of distortion IS disturbing, of course it shouldn't be there, but getting rid of it is NOT solved easily. If it were, none of this type of discussion would take place. But it can be solved, many people have largely done it, there are comments by those who have transcribed good vinyl recordings to digital and then find it almost impossible to pick whether it is the LP or the digital copy playing. What the person has done, of course, is exactly equivalent to having a very high quality accoustic horn gramophone set up in the recording studio with a microphone stuck in front! And it worked ...
Frank |
I'm sorry, Learsfool, like Kijanki, I'm going to have to do another round ...
A "thought" experiment: a classic Mercury recording session happening in the 50's, with that very straightforward microphone setup, feed the signals to both a modern, high quality analogue tape machine, and a current digital recorder setup. You're saying that, in every case of analogue tape and digital recorder setup, that the digital will be markedly inferior to the analogue upon playback, at that recording location on the day -- am I correct in understanding you?
If I am, then I would still beg to differ, because you still have not separated the process of recording from the process of playback! My experience is not yours of the quality of playback of digital, so my conclusion is that the recording has worked well enough, but the quality of playback varies quite markedly, and this includes the playback at the desk of the recording engineer! I have experienced very high quality analogue playback (and, conversely, highly excrutiating, blurred and harsh sound from very expensive vinyl setups), and have sat several rows back from the stage soaking up the vigour of Beethoven's 7th, and still have no difficulty saying that digital has no trouble, no trouble whatsoever capturing that experience ...
Frank |
Learsfool, I'm pleased I did get the first bit right, that is, I was correct in understanding what you were saying.
But, as to "how you can conclude that a recording must have worked right without playing it back", I'm very sorry, another "thought" experiment, and bear with me please ...
Recording a signal digitally and playing it back, for BOTH monitoring AND home playback purposes, is in essence two key processes: A->D, a conversion from an (microphone) analogue waveform to a digital representation (which from then on can be captured with zero distortion), and D->A, the digital representation converted back to an audio signal driving, say, headphones. Let's say, for argument, there was 10% distortion, loss of information, change of sound or whatever you want to call it in this overall process. Where was this 10% lost? Was it:
1) 10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A, OR
2) 0% loss in the A->D and 10% in the D->A, OR
3) 5% loss in the A->D and 5% in the D->A, say
Based on my experiences I would, as a very rough guess, say:
0.1% loss in the A->D and 9.9% in the D->A
and it appears to me that you think it's 1), that is
10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A
That's where we differ, and that's why I believe digital CAN do the job ...
Frank |
Alex, -- "takes a great deal of effort to approach analog quality with digital" -- yes, I agree, it is simply easier to get pleasant sound from a TT than frequently the typical at home CD setup. But that is not the fault of the CD medium itself, but IS the fault of the CD playback mechanism. Simply put, it is injecting too much unpleasant distortion directly into the signal, AND adversely affecting the following amplifier stages. Subtle distortion, yes, but very unpleasant.
So, again, I emphasise, it is at the actual moment that the digital recording is being played, running through the DAC when the damage is done. Let's consider those tests you did:
1) Vinyl to top line AKM ADC encoded at 192/24: Recording 24
1) Same vinyl to top line AKM ADC encoded at 44.1/16: Recording 16
Now, from my point of view, Recording 16 is effectively the same quality as Recording 24, assuming the AKM device is top line as you say.
Now let's play them back -- for argument's sake in a SACD player. Oh dear, Recording 24 is much better than Recording 16! You would say, just what I expected. But I would say, what's happening is that the mechanism in the SACD player is much better at its job of playing back Recording 24 than it is of Recording 16; in other words, at the point of playback more "nasty" distortion is being generated directly and indirectly by the SACD player when ACTUALLY PLAYING 44.1/16 material than when PLAYING 192/24 material, even if it is of the same original audio!
So, in simple terms, the CD sound is lousy because the CD playback is not working properly, or at least not as well as the SACD playback ...
Frank |
