The character of analog and digital


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.

128x128rvpiano

" I listen to classical 95% of the time. I think it’s safe to say the majority of Agoners don’t. "

And how did you come to that presumption?

@lalitk, there are devices that avoid the need to "babysit" vinyl if one has a fully manual TT. For example, the Audio-Technica tone arm lifter works quite well and doesn't cost an arm & a leg like some others. Because of this Audio-Technica, just as with CDs, I also sometimes play LPs when I'm entertaining, cooking or what have you. I often play CDs, too, when I'm just relaxing in the living room and focused on pure music enjoyment. I certainly wouldn't say that digital sounds "inferior" to vinyl. However, as I've previously said, all things being relatively equal in a good audio system, to my ears, vinyl is definitely "better", for lack of a better term in this respect.

I've had many friends visit, audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike, had them sit in the sweet spot on the living room couch, played well recorded CDs and LPs of the same work or performance, at the same volumes, flat out and then asked them to tell me which sounded "best" or "better" to them. Without exception, the determination or preference has always been the vinyl recording. Typical comments include:  'more bass and it sounds more real'; 'sounds more real'; 'sounds more like being there'; 'everything is clearer; 'frequency response up & down the ranges are clearer, crisper, more accurate'; 'vocals sound more real or natural'; 'I could tell right of the bat'; etc.

I feel the same and this is not something one needs to listen long or hard for. Most of my friends are contemporaries in age. However, some are veritable youngsters who could be my children or grand-children and they all like vinyl "better".

As the French would say:  "Chacun so gout!" and "Vive la difference!" The important thing here is love of music!

The directness of R2R tape is not captured by digital atm. Vinyl is inferior to R2R period. Vinyl has it own drawbacks (pops, crackles, noise, channel separation, sub bass) but is the second best analog source. Digital is getting there (for example MSB/DCS) . In the CD-era (80's & 90's) 70% of the analog qualities were captured. With Hi-Res we are getting at 80-90% I think. It's enjoyable and easy to consume though.

@ghdprentice:

"When we go to choose audio equipment we go into analytical mode where we direct our minds eye (ear in this case)... to listen for differences flitting from sound to sound. Spend too much time picking out equipment like this only and this becomes how we appreciate a system… instead of being drawn into the music and making your decision from the perspective of the music."

I couldn't agree more! When doing serious seat-time with various components, over the years, those I've always come home with are those that have always drawn me out of critical listening mode and into pure music enjoyment quickest, often without me even realizing it, at first.

Yogiboy,

Based on the minuscule sales of classical vis a vis pop and rock in the general public, I think it’s a safe assumption.