Worth pursuing analog sound from digital?
cleeds2,434 posts09-11-2019 1:41pmelliottbnewcombjr Digital is a broken chain, no matter how many links, how much you polish those broken links, Digital will/can NEVER be the unbroken chain analog is.It isn't clear what you mean here. Digital isn't perfect - and neither is analog - but neither represent a "broken chain." Of course, some people believe that digital data is missing because of sampling rates (which is false, as long as Nyquist is observed) or that the LP has infinite resolution (which is false, or you could install Windows on it). ....................... ah, I used wrong terms, how about this: analog is unbroken ribbon, digital is an assembled chain. mouth, mic, lp cutter = unbroken ribbon. mouth, mic, tape = unbroken ribbon. lp groove, stylus, phono eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon. tape, tape eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon. digital is bits, assembled into a chain, no matter how many, how manipulated, how quiet, .... after some 45 years, my simple summation is: analog has unbroken overtones in perfect timing, relative strengths, decay strength, .... Analog is definitely higher noise ...Often true, but no inherently so. It depends on the analog recording and the digital recording to which it's being compared. Experiencing the Artist's conceived presentation of their chosen play list, in the order presented, is a part of LP ...And of CD, too. ... amplification, it's the same, transistors were the instant on, less heat, more affordable dream, again, just not nirvana, not Analog like tube amplification is ...Again, it isn't clear what you mean here. Solid state amplifiers for hi-fi use are certainly analog. .................................... yeah, I am wrong about that, audio transistor amps are analog, thanks for catching that. given analog source, why do I prefer tubes to digital amplification? they say tubes include warm distortion, whatever it is, given great speakers (high efficiency for tubes), properly matched to the listening space, both sound great. When I do comparison testing, i.e. Sgt Peppers, CD; LP; R2R tape, I, and everyone, pick LP over CD, and Tape over LP, and, without fail, my 30 watt tube amps over my 300 wpc SS McIntosh. The LP has more noise than the CD, the Tape has more noise than the LP, yet |
As a vinyl lover for years I was not able to enjoy digital as much as vinyl. But my perspective has changed! Several improvements to the power supply (including grounding) of my system and to my digital front end have further reduced the difference between digital and analog. A vibraplane platform and an oversized solid core silver power cord (DIY - not expensive!) were further improvements. I would have never thought a simple red book CD is able to deliver a 3-D stage with imaging while at the same time providing high resolution without sounding noticeably digital. Obvious flaws of early digital recordings remain unpleasant to listen to - but if the recording and mixing was done right even a red book CD is able to impress! |
Raise your hand if you wear glasses so you can see 20/20. Raise your hand if you have corrective hearing devices that normalize the environmental damage and adjust hearing parameters according to your effective 'listening' age. So even since Ben Franklin we've been able to smooth out differences in vision. Now, other than 'hearing aids' the same does not exist for hearing and there is no 'standard' other than hearing 'beep' 'beep' at difference frequencies, which is not the same as hearing music or reading a street sign at 40 feet. The only true benchmark we have is getting a 12-year old to listen to something and we deduce what we missed by them describing what they heard. How many still cling to their black box faux wood grain 27" CRT's playing S-VHS? That's analog. But how many think our 4K TVs are actually showing 4K...or even HD...it's digital anyway....but it's okay for vision....I just ignore the sloppy compression and carry a film projector with me just in case. |
Anyone who’s spent time in a good digital studio knows a first generation multi track digital mix can sound very transparent and engaging. Commercial digital releases are sampled and resampled at least 4 times so they just can’t sound as liquid as analog or the original tracks. Too bad record companies don’t release multi track releases with sub mixes to be listened to on a program like Reaper or Pro Tools. That would be a whole new ballgame. Until then, although my digital system is more expensive I usually listen to vinyl. |
A turntable is mechanically very vulnerable to vibrations of his own makings and constant fluctuations of the courant from the wall for his continuous rotations, not speaking about the needle deficiencies and limitations and other things that are problematic... Sorry nothing is perfect not a dac neither a turntable... Pick your problem but dont speak about a panacea...No grudge against you Master Geoffkait … : ) A walkman is not like speakers, and most headphones are not speakerslike at all...I dont know what you listen to but me I want more than clarity and air, I want 3-d musical holography and more than that naturalness of timbre in music...You owns a very good walkman indeed... A very good headphone too it seems... By the way I own some vinyl of Moondog 45 years ago that I listen to with my turntable and if I listen to it now in files format it is like night and days for the perceived details... It is too easy to say that 50 % of the sound is not perceived with a cd... This is only caricatural sayings about a much complex issues indeed implicating more factors than only the opposition turntable versus dac... I concede tough that for the human nervous system anolog sound is better for health than digital.... Nothing is simple and nothing is so simplistic to be on the same side of the equation... Dont take it personal Geoff I like you very much....:) |
Sorry, not buyin’ it. Digital is a pale facsimile of what it should be. I don’t even have to compare it to analog. Unless you’re extremely motivated and pugnacious you simply can’t extract all of the data on the CD. No way, Jose! And if you don’t do anything at all the best you can expect is about 50% of what’s actually on the CD. And that’s if you’re lucky. Heck, the humble cassette on a Sony Walkman has more life, sweetness and air than a CD ever thought of having. So give me a break! Yes, I know what you’re thinking, “but my CDs sound fabulous!” |
I am very pleased to learn that analog music is better for one’s health. Old fart audiophiles should be pretty healthy and look forward to a lot more listening. I know I get a good workout moving this stuff around. Incorporating my mineral and rock collection is way down the list of possible system improvements and tweaks that circulate in my brain. Actually it is not on the list. Just can’t go that far. Great that it has worked for you. Back to the topic. Yes, by all means push digital as far as you can and want to. It sounds like music to me. |
flatblackround I only say that vinyl are superfluous for ME... And i say that against those who promote vinyl as a theological miracle in sound...By the way i dont recommend to ALL people to place rocks under cable etc etc... I only partake my discovery about the noise level and simple means to improve it with the use of crystals on certain location... Each one of us have his own agenda to battle against noise...But noise is THE problem.....I listen to Mompou with these rocks now, and trust me a geological course does not teach all that is to know about rocks and sound... I wish you the best... P.S. There is and will always be a difference between vinyl and digital, not so much in musicality "per se" because the technology is so advanced now that there is only a little margin of audible difference... But for example the effect on health by the sound is improved with analog and not so by digital, this important fact speak about analogous against digital... These things being said i prefer digital because of the convenience and the impossibility to transform my 10,000 files of music in 10,000 vinyls...And a turntable when I own one was a pain in the ass for me...I dont even mention the price of my low cost miraculous dac versus the cost of the same quality turntable for my system... |
uberwaltz I have never really understood this whole argument or concept of trying to get one to sound like the other, they do not and never will.That depends on what the goal is. If the goal is accuracy, the best analog and digital can sound remarkably similar. If you want to test that claim, use a first-class reel-to-reel deck and the digital recording equipment of your choosing and connect them simultaneously to the same live mike feed. On playback, A/B the results. You might be surprised. There are some listeners who prefer the warm distortion that some analog recorders impart, and that’s a fine preference. But that doesn’t mean both analog and digital can’t achieve a high level of accuracy and when they do, they can sound quite alike. I embrace multiple analog and digital sources and accept each one for what it is and what it brings to the table, warts and all.Me too! It needn’t be an either/or thing. |
David Agreed and musicality is the end game for me. That being said there are and always will be different levels of said musicality achieved via differing sources and mediums. However that is not how I read the OP. Pursuing analog sound sound from digital is not quite the same as trying to extract the highest level of musicality from each source possible. Without attempting mostly unsuccessfully to obtain analog sound from digital ( which on its own is a user definable aspect with even more sub arguements available?). Just my viewpoint of course.... |
Mahgister i have read many of your posts and enjoy your enthusiasm. However I have to comment on your opinion of vinyl rigs and records as superfluous material. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so here is mine. Nothing could be more superfluous than a collection of rocks and minerals linked together by wires and some sort of electrical box in the music room. I say this as a professional geologist while listening to Uriah Heap on CD. Enjoy the music! |
I have never really understood this whole argument or concept of trying to get one to sound like the other, they do not and never will. @uberwaltz Generally, and for most systems, I agree. There, however, is convergence at the highest levels for both approaches. Our definitions for musicality, emotion, engagement, life-like, naturalness, accuracy, etc. don’t change based on the source type. |
I have never really understood this whole argument or concept of trying to get one to sound like the other, they do not and never will. I embrace multiple analog and digital sources and accept each one for what it is and what it brings to the table, warts and all. NONE of them sound the same and that’s just fine and dandy with me. Today is a streaming day. Tomorrow might be a vinyl day. Next day might be a cassette tape day. So what? I am just enjoying the music. Remember that’s the aim. |
Anyone can listen to a cd or a files and a vinyl with the same very known musical piece and decide for himself if the analog version and digital one are close enough..."Close enough" is the key concept, because there is big difference between 2 turntables in different system and rooms, like there is difference between files read trough different convertor... Even if you compare in the same embedding audio room, vinyl turntable with a digital convertor with the same speakers and amplifiers, the results means nothing,because you can have a better convertor that will make the listening more analogous...There will always be some turntable better than my convertor, and there will always be some convertor better than your turntable, it is a without end technological hierarchical progression toward an asymptotic point where the resolution powers of your ears reign supreme... The only thing that count is your impression, is this music playing with an electronical halo or glare or not FOR YOU? In my digital system the answer is no for my ears...Good bye turntables... Turntables are not religious necessities in an audio life...Neither the convertors, or class D amp....Music is music, with or without a turntable or a convertor... By the way the most important choices and decision are not nowadays between a turntable or a digital convertor, these choices are up to the "taste" and caprices or budget of the audiophile, they are only a preference not a life and death audio decision...The important decisions and choices nowadays are between the cleaning, treatments, and tweaks that will transform the house and room embedding of the audio system relatively to mechanical vibrations, electro-magnetic interferences and noises, and acoustical dispositions of the room, nevermind if you have a turntable or a convertor...These choices are vital choices not the choice of a convertor or a turntable... Nowadays with the technology involved these choices between convertors and turntables are only markets hyped ideology and facts... There is fantastic turntables, and there is fantastic convertors also, thanks to many great audio engineers...But most houses and rooms are noisy, and destructing the music, unbeknownst to the owner... This is fact, and a real problem, not hypes or dogmas or debates between different audio religious characters... |
lowrider nailed it My system has been essentially the same for a couple years; Marantz HD CD- 1 used as a transport, Audio Alchemy DDP-1 + PS 5 (preamp/dac), WireWorld cabling, and Emerald Physics KC II speakers with WW wire loom upgrade and Clarity Caps). Amp was Audio Alchemy DPA-1 (both AA pieces got a fabulous review in TAS just 3 years ago) but at 125w was not able to create an adequate spl in my large room. I then tried PS Audio M700s, which, at ~ 2.5xs the wattage did much better job in my room, but fortunately, I got wind of Ric Schultz’s new EVS 1200 class D (as were the other amps) but Ric uses the newest IcePower 600w modules (2 per amp= true dual mono) with lots of tweaks to the modules and elsewhere. All this for $2200 sounds too good to be true, He offers a money back guarantee, so with nothing to loose I dug deep into my bug out money and took the plunge, knowing I would sell the DPA-1 if the 1200 brought the goods. Rics 1200 is not an off the shelf amp. It takes him a good bit of time to do the mods, and each is built to order, though he does so in small batches. It took almost 2 full months to get it. While it sounded good from the get- go, the transformation from ~50-80 hours play time was jaw dropping. The music sounds intimate/delicate when it is, and brash and bold when it is. When properly recorded, the music is EXTREMELY life-like, still catching me off guard. For me, the analog v digital debate is no longer an issue, but I will try a 'better" dac |
My actual tweaked system with a low cost minimalistic designed Nos dac sound analog and more vinyl than ever....No digital glare detectable by me at least...I will never go back to a turntable, the annoying clic sounds of damaged vinyl and the necessity to change the vinyl at each 30 minutes, the cost and necessary disposal of a large object in great quantities, the maintenance and cost of a very complex and sensible mechanical object, the adjustment necessary etc etc...I had never undertand why today people buy a turntable...In a good audio system the difference in non audible... Nowadays my dream is coming true, no need for an object at all, only files and then only music, without bothering with superfluous materials... |
i have the answer your looking for & it has nothing to do with equipment? the record company is manipulating the digital/cd audio in two ways. 1.record company applying brick wall mastering for the fake loudness wars used to destroy the audio & remove the analog type sound your looking for. 2.record company manipulating digital/cd audio converting stereo + stereo depth perception to stereo + mono depth perception by manipulating the (L) + (R) phasing to match each other this removes the 360 degree sound stage found on vintage vinyl here's an audio sample to demonstrate. 1.digital mono depth perception http://pc.cd/df8ctalK 2.brick wall removal + mono to stereo depth perception http://pc.cd/FgP 99% of all new ramastered vinyl is cut from the cd master at 16/44 with mono depth perception destroying the vinyl analog ezperience! |
Everyone here keeps saying that the more expensive (and higher resolution), the closer they get. I have found the exact opposite. On my budget systems ($500 TT, $500 DAC), they sound fairly similar due to limitations in the pre-amp, amp, and speakers. As I upgraded my system (DAC went 500 -> 1000 -> 2500 -> 8000, TT went 500 -> 4000 -> 20,000), the differences became more apparent. Especially when comparing high resolution (like Qobuz) vs a brand new pressing. The results are always the same. Albums recorded in the last 20 years sound better on digital, albums before that sound better to me on vinyl. In no situation do they sound the same, though. |
I live in the future where digital has higher resolution than analog, also much higher dynamic range, like it was always promoted to have but never really did. At the same time digital possesses both sweetness and air. And distortion is virtually non-existent. The problems with digital are not in the format per se, they’re in the playback system, i.e., CD player. If only you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears. |
elliottbnewcombjr Digital is a broken chain, no matter how many links, how much you polish those broken links, Digital will/can NEVER be the unbroken chain analog is.It isn't clear what you mean here. Digital isn't perfect - and neither is analog - but neither represent a "broken chain." Of course, some people believe that digital data is missing because of sampling rates (which is false, as long as Nyquist is observed) or that the LP has infinite resolution (which is false, or you could install Windows on it). Analog is definitely higher noise ...Often true, but no inherently so. It depends on the analog recording and the digital recording to which it's being compared. Experiencing the Artist's conceived presentation of their chosen play list, in the order presented, is a part of LP ...And of CD, too. ... amplification, it's the same, transistors were the instant on, less heat, more affordable dream, again, just not nirvana, not Analog like tube amplification is ...Again, it isn't clear what you mean here. Solid state amplifiers for hi-fi use are certainly analog. |
In my case it was easier to get analog to sound more like digital. I've got a decent analog chain (Denon DP47f, Krell KPE) and I upgraded my cartridge to a Hana SL. With the Hana the sound of analog and digital are remarkably close. I've never had listener fatigue from digital - I got my first CD player in the 80's. In fact, the opposite is true. I am particularly sensitive to clicks, pops, and vinyl distortion from wear on the record. Listening to a worn vinyl record is stressful to me and many times I will turn it off halfway through. The clicks, pops, and distortion have the effect of focusing my attention to the defects and I find myself literally grinding my teeth. CDs were a blessing from the start. Yes, there are some very poorly transferred CDs and I don't listen to them. But I have several hundred CDs and records of the same recording and the great majority of them sound pretty darn similar. I have always been able to listen to CDs for hours without fatigue. The great majority of my audio goosebumps have come from listening to CDs. I have had a succession of CD players (8 players, 2 transports and 2 DACs) and they have steadily gotten better. I now have a Marantz SA8005 for SACDs, a Krell KAV 250/2 for HDCDs, a Denon DVD 3800bcdi for Blu Ray HD Audio, and a PSA PerfectWave II DAC and Transport for regular CDs. Whatever millercarbon is hearing is just foreign to me and I couldn't be more thankful. Music from CDs have given me thousands of hours of enjoyment and have made my life better. |
Analog isn't the only thing, I would never get rid of my digital. Digital can be enjoyable, even involving, terrific, however: Digital is a broken chain, no matter how many links, how much you polish those broken links, Digital will/can NEVER be the unbroken chain analog is. Analog is definitely higher noise, but, higher involvement, go figure. I sum it up: Analog gets the overtones right, something digital loses along the way, despite the incredible sampling rates, ........ Track selection, replay, play lists, FREE, EASY: digital's the answer, Experiencing the Artist's conceived presentation of their chosen play list, in the order presented, is a part of LP, (and Reel to Reel, 8 track, cassette, ...) New LPs, or Used LP's in great shape sound terrific, any minimal noise disappears within the achieved involvement. Old LP's, with their dust, scratches, clicks, pops, you won't play them, except to remember something. Before CD, we trained our brains to filter out noise, hear the content. Noiseless forever digital was a dream, but turned out to be less than nirvana. We had to re-acquire the ability to filter the noise inherent in Analog, then, back to more immersive involvement. R2R, TT, they need/take prime surface to operate them, and the content takes space. And $ to acquire content. R2R, TT, both systems require acquired skills to get their high potential. And, let me add, amplification, it's the same, transistors were the instant on, less heat, more affordable dream, again, just not nirvana, not Analog like tube amplification is, so IF Analog LP, then Analog Tube Amps, therefore, start with efficient speakers so that power requirements are reduced. |
“on a quality system, with a quality source, they should sound the same“. I respectfully disagree, they cannot sound the same (close maybe) even if the playback is from the same master file. Everytime I heard and compared, Vinyl and Digital (CD or Streaming) setup, they sounded different not better or worse but different. The key here is to tweak both setups to your liking and enjoy the music. They both can be very engaging and satisfying. |
skipskip If you can weed through the hyperbole, on a quality system, with a quality source, they should sound the same.I agree completely. The very best analog, and the very best digital, sound very, very close. Some listeners prefer the distortion that some analog equipment offers - so they'll record CD to reel-to-reel and think the sound has "improved." Those listeners seek something other than accuracy so for them, of course, they'll always prefer an analog source with some added analog distortion. |
skipskip If you can weed through the hyperbole, on a quality system, with a quality source, they should sound the same. >>>>Isn’t it pretty to think so? 🌸 🌸 🌸 |
I sense that the definition of a digital gear sounding "analog" is going to be different for everyone and for some may be life long pursuit. For what its worth, last weekend at the Rocky Mountain Audio Festival, I experienced the Innuous USB re-clocker that they will be selling for $3k. Putting the cost aside, I did experience the A/B testing with it in and out of the system multiple times, I did notice and felt a clear and greater sense of "ease" in the music with the reclocker...Interesting that after the event I looked on their site and the feeling of ease is what they talk about in their marketing. Did it sound more "analog".. I can't say, only can share what it made me feel. I share this because even with all the great DACs that have been mentioned, I for one am wondering if some form of a USB reclocker (this flavor or other) would bring additional benefit to them, including tube based DACs or even ones that do reclocking internally and do isolation and noise reduction. |
I love vinyl also.My brother has a nice set up that I enjoy from time to time.If I could afford to do both I certainly would,and a reel to reel deck,and,and..... I think it takes even more time,tweaking,and $$$ to build a really good analog system too.My digital system sounds way better than my analog system ever did just because of the effort I've expended on it.I don't think any one way to enjoy music is superior.The thought and effort put into the fine tuning is what gets us to our individual nirvana.My deep thought for the day:-) |
I have two DACs, one is really great - the best digital sound i have have in my system since I don’t know when. Many years back I had the Mission 775sm ‘table with an Alphason HRS100 and believe it or not an old Stanton MM cartridge (later moved on to a Musical Fidelity M1 table with Dynavector Karat 17d3). The Alphason with cartridge was not even set up that perfectly, but the sound was just amazing, with practically every record I played. The main magic was from an MFA MC Reference, one of three Scott Frankland prototypes and a true masterpiece of hifi. The amps were Audio Research Classic 150 (loved the sound of those amps). I have not had a digital front end sound anywhere close to as musical as that rig, and it was considerably more noisy than digital. I couldn’t keep out of Savation Army or Goodwill hunting for vinyl treasures. That is how good that sound was. I still have some recordings I made from the vinyl through the lumi. They sound so alive even with the usual vinyl noises. vinyl as I experienced it brought me so much closer to the music. Sounded so alive, like listening in 3D. Classical and Jazz fugeddaboudit. So much texture, tonal color, scale, separation, Thats my feeling on it. I haven’t owned a vinyl rig in many years, but I do plan to pay a visit to Scott and Colby Walker to get set up. |
3 years ago I would have said "no way!" Today I feel differently. Firstly I had a nice analog setup: Vpi Classic Benz Micro Cart Quicksilver Phono Pre Quicksilver Mid Mono Monblocks with KT88's The problem I was having after 3 Cart re-builds (and these were not my only carts) was that every time I played a disc I would think in the back of my mind, "this is $5 to play this record". I was obsessed with the wear of the diamond and the time till degradation, and "If the diamond is worn, will I damage my original pressing of Lee Morgan Vol.2?" and twice children of friends would walk up to the cart and pull the cantilever right off. WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE DO THIS!?!?!? Anyway.... I decided to search out digital. I started with demoing several dacs, each one more expensive and better. Then I purchased the PS Audio Direct Stream Junior, which took 46 days 24/7 to break in but it was shockingly worth it. I kept my mono blocks and purchased a new AT7 Tubed Quicksilver Line Pre. I ended up trading up to the Directstream Sr. and another 46 days of breakin. When I first powered these dacs I felt like crying, they sounded so bad and then got worse at about 300-500 hrs. At 1000 hrs a switch is thrown and they sound amazing. Yes Mary, it DOES sound like vinyl. If some one is using digital and it doesn't sound like vinyl, they have other issues: the dac? Using digital Amps or preamps? Something else?? Bottom line, I spent 25 years perfecting vinyl, I know what good vinyl sounds like, and this current system sounds like vinyl. I could and do listen for 6 hours a day with ZERO FATIGUE. I listen while I work every day and then at night when family goes to bed. I can't speak for the NUwave. Never heard it. For the guy in the thread that said anyone with $200 can get what digital people search for....wha???? $200? I think not. If you are playing on a $200 table, my system will make you poop your pants. And for the guy who poked fun at people seeking the analog sound....well duh, analog is nature, what else would people be searching for. Also....the source material is vitally important, Direct Stream Digital recordings are the way to go. A CD with NOT sound like vinyl even through the DSD Sr. T |
https://drop.com/buy/massdrop-x-airist-audio-r-2r-dac?mode=shop_open&gclsrc=aw.ds&&utm_s... Limited to 3 inputs-USB, spdif and toslink. Only single ended outputs. But damn if she doesn’t sound sweet, much more so than my Mytek, PS Audio Stellar and Raleigh RAKK dac. Can’t beat the price either. |
