I enjoy both digital and vinyl playback of my music. No reason why one can't enjoy both.
Worth pursuing analog sound from digital?
Hi all,
I recently acquired a PS audio Nuwave dac which has eliminated most of the digital harshness compared with my old dac but it's still not as smooth and harsh-free like vinyl. I was wondering if it's worth pursuing that analog sound from digital without spending a fortune and if it's even possible. I know lots of digital lovers will say digital can be as good as vinyl but is it really?
I recently acquired a PS audio Nuwave dac which has eliminated most of the digital harshness compared with my old dac but it's still not as smooth and harsh-free like vinyl. I was wondering if it's worth pursuing that analog sound from digital without spending a fortune and if it's even possible. I know lots of digital lovers will say digital can be as good as vinyl but is it really?
124 responses Add your response
I think you can get really nice sound from both vinyl and digital sources, so yes, it certainly is worth pursuing the best sound you can afford/get from digital. There are many recordings that I have on LP that sound better than the digital version, but, I suspect that has more to do with the mastering and deterioration of the original analogue tape masters than it has to do with inherent differences in the recording medium. I say this because there are also many digital remasters that I have that DO sound very good. I also have many digital remasters that sound substantially better than my vinyl original releases, probably because the re-mastering was superior to the original mastering for vinyl production (1970's DG classical recordings usually sound better in the digital versions). Given that very little of current classical recordings ever come out on vinyl (same with current jazz), and given that most current popular recordings are originally done digitally even if they are also issued on vinyl, and given that a vast catalog of older recordings is available digitally and easier to find in that form than the analogue originals (in good shape anyway), it makes sense to actually make good digital playback a priority. |
jaferd OP Is this laser-reading problem something that has been studied and corroborated? Is this a problem if the data is read from a hard drive or flash drive? im no electronic engineer but can’t they make the laser processor more specific and less sensitive to avoid the misreads? >>>>The laser-reading problem has been discussed before but usually in regards to tracking and the servo tracking mechanism, which apparently stalls out and becomes ineffective under duress, which is IMHO almost all the time since the CD flutters and vibrates during play for a variety of reasons. I don’t think much has been done with regards to scattered background with the exception of the Green Pen. I have a product that absorbs infrared (invisible) scattered light, which is the only such product extant. Vibration has obviously been studied more, e.g., vibration isolation and damping discs, etc. |
Dear @jaferd and friends:Other advantage for digital and disadvantage for LP is that as everything in digital ( celphones, computers, audio, etc. ) " almost every day " are new advances in the overall digital technology and seems that that digital trend is endless. In the other side LP has not that kind of development, as a fact the LP " technology " is steady for many years now: just stop it, there are nothing really new on cartridges, TTs, tonearms or the LP it self. Only tiny tiny refiniments that at the end is more of the same. Has no future as true up-grades/up-dates like digital. For years the best recordings came from D2D recordings ( Sheffield Labs or M&K. ) or those " one side only " Clarity Recordings and Stereophile ones or the DMM by Stockfish or the vintage MoFi UHQR or even the digital LPs from the late 70's early 80's like Telarc or Delos or Denon PCM that 70%-80% of them performs really good and not easy to detect are digital recordings and when digital was just in the begining. I own several titles of all those kind of recordings that are in a different league that any other LPs. The last D2D samples I bought came from Acoustic Sounds and are nothing special the old ones named were a lot better recordings. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
I am not trying to rain on anybody’s parade but the problem with the “DAC makes everything better” theory is that, as I recently opined, the problems are primarily in the laser-read process and caused by not only seismic vibration but mechanical and acoustic vibration’s effects on the CD AND the inherent vibration of the disc itself PLUS the scattered background laser light gets into the photodetector where it’s mistaken for real reflected signal. These problems have existed in CD players ever since they were a gleam in some engineer’s eye. 👁 Once these problems occur there’s no going back, the corrupted data gets transmitted to the DAC, errors and all. |
There are two parts to getting analog sound from digital. It's not hard. Even I did it. First is the source. The second is a DAC into the Amp (So many good Dac's out there now). I agree a DAC need not cost a much as a car new or used. As others have wisely said, wait until next week. These days DACs are falling out of trees. Many folks crave analog sound. A good DAC can deliver that. I get a lot of music from high res files from Qobuz. That matters. Depth is depth. I now use a Lumen T2 with a built-in DAC that goes to my tube set up. I also use an ungraded power supply with the Lumin. It doesn't sound at all "digital" nor would I put up with that. I'm a warm sound set up type. A friend and I listened to John Coltrane's "Theme For Ernie" (SoulTrane Album) and "Blue rondo a la turk" (end drum roll is so system telling) first on his fine vinyl only system in his sanctified listening room and then on my set up (PLuna HP/KT120's..tweaked pre amp tubes…quality connects…yah dah yah dah yah dah) and Mr Vinyl only was astounded. As was the guy over last night who we finally had to say good night to again and again before he got the hint. He did sample King Sunny Adé, and that was nice to hear again. To answer your question with out battling over vinyl verses digital: In a nut shell, analog sound from digital is here (in the beginning it sure wasn't)....your set up...room..cabling...all will affect your system's sound. Duh. Simply great files washed in a great DAC is stunning as is a great pressing on a great (read $$$) vinyl set up. All this passion here is great. I read for a long time before daring to jump in. The overwhelming advice time and time again is if you like something then that's great. Duh again. Additionally gleaned is that so much is system/room dependent that results vary. I suspect at heart there are a lot of nameless, faceless tinkerers in this august forum. Everyone is proud of their babies. And they are all beautiful. |
I agree that since 1995, compression is one of the three greatest causes of bad/poor quality recorded music. However, in the 1970s-1980s, pop/rock was often compressed on the finished product. I have plenty of examples where the Pink Island British pressings are fantastic and the U.S. pressings were crappy sounding. How about the Beatles U.S. versus British pressings. My British pressings sound really dynamic, tonally rich and listenable. My Capitol pressings often are compressed, bright, hashy and noisy. Not very fun to listen to. I had at least 100 classical music cassettes from that period and they sounded dynamically compressed and generally awful sounding compared to the LPs (and not just U.S. but from Philips and DGG). CDs, once I could play them better in the mid-2000s, obliterated the same recordings on cassette. |
I hated digital when I owned bad dacs (for me they were all bad ,too digital, harsh, piercing highs even when they were not piercing they were like craking chalk on a board even subtly like that sometines etc)…. I owned someday a NOS dac with a minimalistic design and that was game over for me... This incredible dac was too low cost for being mass convincing... (starting point systems dac)The sound was anything but not digital...Organic and natural...Viva digital life... |
Dear @fleschler : """ we hear in the analog-realm.... ", yes that's what we/I think till I read/learned that we have an ADC next highligths about but you can read the whole article there: """ the ear. This small organ has quite a few surprises in store for us. We' see that it's literally crammed with equalisers and dynamic compressors, including a multi‑band one. It even includes an extremely efficient filter bank, as well as a highly sophisticated analogue‑to‑digital converter. The Inner Ear: Multi‑band Compression, Pitch Tracking & ADCThere are two kinds of hair cells. The outer hair cells are the actual receptors. When the tectorial membrane moves, so does the hair on the the outer cells. This movement is then encoded into electrical digital signals and goes to the brain through the cochlear nerve. With the hair cells, we come to the end of the audio path inside the ear. Hair cells are neurons, and the purpose of the outer hair cells is to convert the mechanical vibrations that come from their cilia into nerve signals. Such signals are binary (all or nothing), and seem to be completely decorrelated from the analogue signals to which they correspond. In other words, they're digital signals, and the inner hair cells are analogue‑to‑digital converters. """ Btw, @tzh21y , yes and agree with your post. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
mr_m fleschler, Totally agree with your last sentence. Just listen to some of the Rock/Pop groups of the mid seventies. Compression was in (over) abundance back then. Many recording companies were too busy trying to make those recordings sound good over your car speaker. >>>>>Huh? Compression is a relatively recent phenomenon, the truly egregious compression started in the late 90s and is so bad today that you can see many new recordings and re-issues are “flat-lined” Dynamic Range wise, as shown on the dynamic range database. Also, car speakers have very little to do with why records and CDs are compressed. The mid seventies was actually a period of high dynamic range, as were the eighties and most of the nineties. |
geoffkait wrote "
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!”
Something is wrong with geoffkait. My professional digital recordings and that of my friends rival R2R. Prerecorded cassettes sound like dung compared to my beautifully remastered CDs. I love LPs and I love CDs. As a part-time recording engineer, I have experience with 40 years of recording equipment. 1000s of my CDs (mostly classical, jazz and early pop) are fantastic sounding and musically involving. The mastering engineers took great care in making the CDs or were lucky that the mastertapes used for the LPs were sufficiently good to do a straight transfer. There must be something wrong with geoffkait. Compressed Rock CDs do sound bad, but so did many of the LPs and cassettes made from bad mastering. |
I’ll chime in. The best early CD player which sounded analog-like was a Kyocera 410 from 1984. After that, it took me until 2006 to achieve analog-like sound (sometimes the CD is better, sometimes the LP) and that was the first version of the EAR Acute with NOS pair of 6DJ8s. I’ve since heard some great DACs and CD players which extract what’s on the CD. Historic CDs, especially acoustic 78s that have been remastered correctly are superior sounding and easier to hear than the original 78s and LP reincarnations. Analog-like is the standard because we hear in the analog realm. To sound analog-like, many posters summon up the sound of an analog source, turntable or R2R. Digital and CDs can sound analog-like or even like an analog source given the proper recording and mastering. One thing I do to have repeatable, great CD sound is using a Walker Talisman (pair of bonded magnets) to neutralize the CD (and LP) magnetism, especially due to spinning at high speed. It's so quick and easy. I've used the demag. machines but they were not as successful or easy to use as the Talisman. |
If you can do a comparison you'll hear the difference between an analog & digital rig. No need to take anybody's word for anything. Iftheclicks & pops don't bother you, you'll get more of everything good sonically. DO NOT take my word for it, listen for yourself. I have both. In terms of digital, I've a Merdian 808. Any 800 series Meridian - go for at least a mark IV (or any later replacements) you can find used will have the lack of harshness (& plenty of resolution) you're after. It still won't have all the resolution & more of a decent analog rig but it''ll be plenty good (interconnect & power cables are important, however). That is an absolute guarantee, but again take my word for none of it. Listen for yourself & all will be more than clear. |
Dear @elliottbnewcombjr : In my post the reference to you was only because you posted that analog/LP is " an unbroken ribbon and digital is an assembled chain " and the facts/what I explained says that LP is an assembled chain and worst than the digital medium. In that post I said that each one of us preferences are non-questionable are out of question. Against all the facts I explained in that post your preferences, the other gentleman preferences and my preferences are only that " preferences " and can’t change in anyway those facts and the main fact says: digital has quality superiority over LP and was already explained. That we love the worst medium and even " die for " ( LP ) does not change the facts and only says that that is what we like it because it’s what we are accustom to, it’s our music reference instead that our reference be LIVE MUSIC seated at nearfield position. Any one of you can have experiences of live music at nearfield position and you will find out that does not exist almost nothing of the LP main characteristics we love as: warm, sweetnees, relaxed and the like and you will learn that real music has a natural brigthness, agressive, extremely powerful and dynamic, not very well defined soundstage and could be even with some harsness. We have to remember that recording microphones are " seated " at nearfield position and that’s what pick-up, then why we want that warm or sweetness and the like that just does not exist in the reality. Yes we like the " ilusion " . Some one of you posted: "" analog is nature, what else would people be searching for. """ well I learned that the last link between the ears and brain is an Analog to Digital Converter and I posted from where came that lesson. What happens with LP vs digital is exactly the same when we discuss tube vs solid state, here what is totally out of reality is the tube technology but for some of us is what we are accustom to and for that reason is what we like even that puts us faraway from the recording when solid state puts us nearer to the recording but this overall subject is for other dedicated thread. Now, if any one of us LP lovers ( as me. ) fine tune our room/system for digital ( including all the ones that " hate " digital. ) a great side reward is that after the room/system digital fine tunning the LP experiences will be better than ever. Please don’t say NO just try it and fine tune your room/system till you can listen digital in a " decent " way. That makes a quality paramount differences for the better always and will makes that LP shines as never before ! ! R. |
Wrm57 said it correctly I’ve listened to two excellent & expensive vinyl systems They are better.... The question for me is; will mid level vinyl sound better ? Im awaiting a final listen to a Chord Huei Phono stage & then pull the trigger. My mid level Analog will be : Project Classic, Hana SL & “ probably “ a Musical Surroundings Phenomenona 2 Phono ( or Chord?) Will it be better than Chord Quetest running Tidal & DSD upsample? we will see jeff |
(forgot to say) Ladder DACs are hardly a "new thing." Theta Digital & a couple others did tremendous development/refinement of early R2R circuits in the '90s, and some of those DACs are still around, sounding amazing. But the mass market never adopted this form of digital, preferring delta-sigma instead (by a wide margin). And now R2R & ladder DACs are having a distinct renaissance, luckily for me. |
Longtime vinyl lover here--someone who successfully transitioned to digital-only in the desktop audio setting (including quality headphones--very revealing of digital). A few observations: 1 - The trad way to get better sounding digital is to throw extreme money at delta-sigma conversion chips. Things like intricately designed input sections; big power supplies; heavyweight output sections; and sometimes, exotic bit-shaping circuitry in the digital section (ie, not defaulting to stock filter options of the chip itself. I haven't heard any of these dreadnaughts, which can cost upwards of $20K-$30K, but trust the comments I read that these DACs are a glimpse of sonic heaven. 2 - But back in the real world, I found one needn't spend so much or work nearly so hard to get better digital sound. I'll echo what teo_audio said about R2R & ladder DACs. Yes, it's an old technology and requires precise resistor matching (if a true ladder is used); or absent that, a very well conceived & programmed FPGA section. But these types of DACs sound far less "digital" than anything I've yet heard. 3 - In my experience, the NOS (non-oversampling) variant of R2R & ladder DACs is best for me. The sound is simply more organic, relaxing, suggestive of recording space, and representative of actual, 3-dimentional instruments (which produce 3D notes). Not all NOS DACs are amazing--these designs have to be very carefully planned & executed w/quality parts. But that's a given in any audio sphere. My 1st non-D/S DAC was the humble NOS 19 by the well-known Chinese audio designer/mfr, Audio GD. It completely transformed my relationship w/digital. For the first time, I could relax and hear music coming from this DAC. I got interested in Audio GD and decided to buy their biggest selling DAC ever, the resistor ladder DAC-19. It, too, is very fine-sounding digital. I since sold the NOS 19 & replaced it with an NOS DAC I got interested in, the MHDT Labs Orchid. It, too, offers very humane, musical sound. I just swapped out the stock tube from the buffer circuit for a highly-recommended NOS variant. Even w/o the tube being fully burned in, it already sounds rather amazing. |
mijostyn
re: personal involvement in results is a part of LP preference I agree. In the beginning, CD players were prohibitively expensive, acquired by people likely to already have excellent TT and acquired cartridge alignment skills. Those skills, bit by bit (hah, that's a digital process)) steadily improved their existing LP sound. (and R2R as Tape was also a rich mans game). CD took away all personal involvement in the results, 'threw away' the years of acquired skills. Also, early CD's were conversions of old analog masters. Incredibly, (I read somewhere back then) some LP masters, having 1st stage phono eq, were converted without 2nd stage Phono EQ. The complaint of harshness was true because those digital copies had exaggerated highs and cut bass. A switching DAC, alternating left/right processing was less desirable than dual Burr-Brown dacs. more bits, 1 bit, less jitter, OMG, green stripes on the outer edge of CD's, the string of what could be 'improved' was longer than the list of what is wrong with the entire LP chain. Except for the green stripes, and placing barbell weights on top of your CD player, personal involvement was/is still missing. |
rauliruegas9
Let me say this about accurate. First, I never said anything about accurate, analog or CD, and I did say Digital can be involving. Your list of LP chain of distortions is phenomenal, OMG, thanks for that, I mean it. How do we not hate LP after hearing accurate digital? How can many of us find severely compromised LP 'more involving' than accurate and admittedly involving CD? My answer, after 45 years of paying attention, by instinct (no evidence I know of), is analog's reproduction of overtones is somehow better than digital's, and somehow our brains perceive the difference. My most accurate speakers were JSE Infinite Slope Model 2's. Measured and positioned using professional sound meter in my listening space, via acoustic designer, I moved my big efficient horns/15" woofers elsewhere and listened to accurate noiseless CD's and those accurate speakers via accurate McIntosh SS 300wpc amp for a few years. I decided to move the horns/15" woofers back, Oh Happy Day, preferred them. Then, because they are so efficient, I moved my 30 wpc tube mono blocks back in. Oh Happy Day. Then I resurrected my Thorens/SME/Shure MR back in. New LP's sounded terrific, more involving. Older LP's, too much obvious noise. I had to re-acquire my brain's ability to filter the noise to be immersed within those noisy LP's. Of course new LP's, especially ones recorded by people who knew what they were doing are preferred. Gave the JSE's to my son, he came of musical age during the period of their use, he loves them. Thorens 124 bearing's weakness was bass transferred from my springy floor (split level built in 1951), so I sold it, got a modern digital drive TT, it sounds terrific, as good as the Thorens/SME without the floor vibration transference problem. And, here we are, advising OP, many of us who love LP's, that he will do better with TT/LP's than digital, IF, as he says, he desires the elusive 'LP Sound'. OP mentioned digital mid-range preference, but like you, I suspect that is a speaker/room interaction issue unrelated to Analog or Digital. Analog is wrong but I prefer it! |
mijostyn All crap. Lets face it old guys. Digital is way more accurate than analog, you don’t have to deal with noise issues or the 10% harmonic distortion or the needle getting stuck >>>>Accuracy is a tricky thing. On paper CDs are specified/promoted to have at least 90 dB Signal to Noise Ratio and 90 dB Dynamic Range. Yet on CDs the tape hiss from the original master tape is almost never audible whereas it is on records and cassette. One wonders what else is missing. As for noise and distortion in CD playback it can be reduced significantly with vibration isolation and RFI/EMI countermeasures, etc. So, obviously there is considerable noise and distortion in CD playback to begin with, you’re just used to it, that’s all. So what good is the 90 dB spec? As for the “theoretical” 90 Dynamic Range the overly compressed CDs these days kind of eliminate that spec for any important or meaning. As for the musicality by comparisons to the same recording on record or cassette the CD in most cases sounds like a poor facsimile in terms of bass articulation, sweetness, air and dynamics. |
To the OP, atm PS Audio has a promo going on that will allow you to trade in ANY PS Audio DAC toward the purchase of a new Direct Stream DAC. They will give you a $2000. credit for your old DAC, no matter age, or model. I have a PSA NuWave DSD DAC that I purchased new, after they were discontinued for $800. They will give me 2K toward the DSD. I'm very tempted to jump on a new DSD, directly from PSA for 4K. I would rather go this route than purchase a used unit for a few hundred less. Just my 2 cents. Might be worth looking into... |
All crap. Lets face it old guys. Digital is way more accurate than analog, you don't have to deal with noise issues or the 10% harmonic distortion or the needle getting stuck. You are all disillusioned by the fact that there is very little to tamper with. No tweaky stuff you can make yourself think you made sound better. All an illusion. You are all ripe targets for any scheister that wants to rip you off with magic trinkets and silly wire. "digital sounds thin,unnatural, bloated, bass shy, inarticulate" and on and on and on. My back side. I could call it for what it is but then my post would be deleted. Which it probably will anyway. I love vinyl. I have so many records I can't help but love it and there is an art to the best vinyl playback but it is not more accurate than full res digital. It can't be. Just look at the distortion specs of even the best cartridges. As high as 10%! You might care to notice that I did not say digital sounds better than analog. I said it was more accurate. |
rauliruegas Der @geoffkait : """ digital generally still sounds thin, unnatural, bloated, bass shy, inarticulate, congealed, zippy, two dimensional, generic, metallic, electronic, like paper mache, bland, hard, piercing, compressed, airless and sour "" you have a problem too, not digital technology. >>>>>>When’s the last time you had your ears candled? 🕯 |
@rauliruegas I've stopped worrying about the cerebral requirement for having a live reference. My simple test now is does the sound connect me to the music? in which case warmer cd, cleaner vinyl - I may be unconsciously making them sound the same. I can't remember the last un-amplified live jazz, or rock ever heard - do you? Probably a street busker without electricity. I don't work in a studio so I don't sit in a booth mastering sound. I do listen in the near field - but I have found the move towards a tube output CD player which certainly ain't harsh and cold. I don't find that near field lacks warmth - in fact I don't understand your remark that near field is anything but warm - being far or near is about perspective and imaging - not warmth. let me put it this way - play rock via a naim nait 3 amp in the near field using a CD player without tube output vs a tube amp driven by a valve output phono stage - there's gonna be a world of difference in warmth. |
I'm no expert but I like vinyl sound more than digital even with it's vices because real sound is not harsh. Analog has it's own coloration but at least there's no harshness to the reproduction. This is the only reason I don't favor digital. If it's possible to remove the digital harshness completely, then there's no advantage to vinyl, imo. |
rauliruegas I forgot: Do you know that our brain has a very complicated sampling rate for harmonics that we think we can’t hear? >>>>>I did not know that. 🤪 |
Dear friends : My take on this audio subject is that ech one of us are not totally rigth or totally wrong. In some ways each one of us have more or less " reasons " about. What’s not questionable is each one of us preferences, this is out of question. I’m with the gentlemans that think today digital technology is superior to the analog/LP medium. Even that I like LP technology too, at the end I’m a music lover and then an audiophile too. Digital and LP have its own trade offs, a lot more negative trade-offs in the LP side nd that’s why makes no sense to me that some of you are against digital because does not sounds like the LP but all of you analog lovers need to make a favor and ask your self: why digital should be sound s analog when analog/LP is a wrong technology full of degradations and full of distortions? why is your reference against digital? Maybe could be because is what we are accustom to for many many years but this fact does not tell me and can’t tell me is the rigth way to go because today it’s not when the digital it’s. I listen to both formats and even that like almost all of you I’m accustom to LP sound I know for sure digital is superior. LP signal degradations and full of distortions????. Please let me explain where through the long road the recorded LP signal information must pass before we can listen nothing through our speakers: With out " seeing " both whole proccess ( digital/LP ) I want to analize 2-3 steps on the analog side: RIAA eq.: this analog recording step is " fulminant " for the audio signal, terrible for say the least, because we have to think that from 20 hz to 20 khz the audio signal is equalized in between ( around ) -18 db to +18 db. In reality the RIAA is an equalization curve, a severe one that affects every single MUSIC note/harmonics. Other step is that the equalized audio signal must be recorded/cutted and end in the vinyl material where is imposible to be faithful to that " original " equalized audio signal. All these severe audio signal degradation does not exist in the digital recording process that’s more " direct " than analog. Exist other degradation issues in the analog recording process but with those are enough by now. Playback at each one of us room/system: digital is extremely easy and more " direct " too, with a lot lesser signal degradation than in analog and when we are taling of " signal degradation " we are talking that we are adding distortions at each of those additional steps. Digital needs a DAC and is " done ". There is no need of a phono cartridge with all its disadvantages and other additional steps to listen it. During playback process and before the cartridge we have to " figth " with every kind of unstabilities in the TT even on speed accuracy, motor noises, damping problems and the like. Along those comes the LP imperfections as: off center records and the fact that all LP comes with macro and micro surface waves due that are not totally flat. All those develops additional distortions to the analog playback experiences. But not all stops there, the worst is forth coming when the stylus tip touch the first recorded groove: first than all is that for the playback process stays faithful to the recording that stylus tip must be ridding/tracking exactly with the same angle that the grooves where cutted ( this never happens not even in LT tonearms. ) and must rides/follow those grooves adding nothing but the movements/modulations that produces those grooves. This is that must mimic the grooves with out any kind of generated vibrations/movements kind of feedback: impossible to achieve it, all the analog playback process is added by different kind of distortions and we can´t do nothing at all. ELLIOT.. POSTED: """ analog is unbroken ribbon, digital is an assembled chain. """ really?. No way my friend, analog is an assemblend chain and not only because the cartridge stylus can’t read exactly the recorded modulations but because at micro and I mean it MICRO levels the stylus tip is not riding stable and continuos but with micro jumps. Each groove modulation is an obstacle/wall for the cartridge very tiny stylus tip In that stylus tip job exist differences on the problem/distortions levels depending on the stylus tip shape, stylus clean shape, stylus tip damaged level, LP surface clean condition or dust, and very critical the self cartridge tracking abilities and the cartridge/tonearm accuracy in the set-up. A nigthmare for say the least. But things go on: that cartridge is mounted in an imperfect item name it: tonearm that generates by it self several kind of different distortion levels some by its feedback and some other because not well damped design and all these affects and degrades the audio signal. Additional the audio signal must pass through the tonearm internal wires and cartridge tonearm input/output male/female connectors before gone to the phono stage. More distortions generated there. The worst for the end: signal goes through the phono stage: at this step begins the real earthwake a full 10.0 Ritcher scale one when that already and heavy degraded audio signal must pass for the inverse RIAA eq. that never can mimic the recorded RIAA eq. due that always exist deviations ( the phono stage spec in your unit: 20 hz to 20 khz +,- 0.1 db., in the best cases. ). This second equalization stage destroy per se what left of that audio signal but things goes on because the signal must be amplified almost 10K times ! ! ! ( LOMC cartridges. ) before the linepreamp can handle the signal. So, now just imagine if what we are listening through the LP is better than on digital medium where the signal did not pass through all those " torture " analog steps.. We like analog because for to many years we are accustomed to those very high distortion levels: we are accustom to, our ears/brain takes it as the rigth sound to listen MUSIC when digital is something totally " new " for the brain. NO analog/LP it’s not the rigth sound. Today digital is nearest to the recording and nearest to what the recording microphones pick-up and these means nearest to the live music. Analog/LP is far far away from there no matters what. Btw, all those gentlemans that can’t listening for more than 20 minutes digital because the " harsness " or digital sound have a room/system probelm and why I think this way: digital is really more more demanding that analog. Through today digital medium this medium can’t hide all the room/systems " errors "/distortions at each one room/system link when through analog/LP all those room/system self distortions are totally hidden due to the higher distortions generated/developed in the LP playback proccess. Today digital is a true test for every single room/system. If digital just does not performs good/rigth in your system then you are in trouble. Period. In the other side nothing is wrong with digital vs analog because for your information inside our ears all of us have an ADC !!!! surprise?, please read these article information where we can read these 3 highligths about: """ the ear. This small organ has quite a few surprises in store for us. We’ see that it’s literally crammed with equalisers and dynamic compressors, including a multi‑band one. It even includes an extremely efficient filter bank, as well as a highly sophisticated analogue‑to‑digital converter. The Inner Ear: Multi‑band Compression, Pitch Tracking & ADC "" There are two kinds of hair cells. The outer hair cells are the actual receptors. When the tectorial membrane moves, so does the hair on the the outer cells. This movement is then encoded into electrical digital signals and goes to the brain through the cochlear nerve. """ " "With the hair cells, we come to the end of the audio path inside the ear. Hair cells are neurons, and the purpose of the outer hair cells is to convert the mechanical vibrations that come from their cilia into nerve signals. Such signals are binary (all or nothing), and seem to be completely decorrelated from the analogue signals to which they correspond. In other words, they’re digital signals, and the inner hair cells are analogue‑to‑digital converters. """ Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. Just for your records please read what this gentleman posted on digital: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/interesting-project-started-by-michael-fremer/post?postid=1261854#1261854 and look his room/system: https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/615 |
As a long-time recording engineer and mixer, my preference is for digital as it is what I heard in the studio. Mastering for vinyl and pressing a record changes the sound significantly from the master mix. No doubt that some people prefer the way the vinyl process changes the sound, but it is not the same mix the artist, producer and engineer heard in the studio. |
So, for CD playback, and I don’t mean to be snooty, everything is broken. A simple comparison of cassette vs CD will confirm. Broken lines, broken strings, |
Here's a thought. Anyone in socal willing to do an A-B comparison with his or her system to the available folks here on this thread? I'm sure hearing is very subjective so if we can all hear the same comparison, we may be able to come up with an agreement between digital and analog. You're all welcome to come to my house but my system is less than ideal although vinyl does sound smoother imo. |
