Analog: Still Better?

[botrytis]

9 hours ago, One and a half said:

Hello, it's usually mastered with more compression and more loudness.

No, that is Analog. Jeez - they have to compress the highs and lows and lower stereo separation......

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, One and a half said:

No that's digital for laptops and ear buds.

 

And for expensive TT's. Except the digital doesn't usually have a hum, pops, or vibrations.

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, ASRMichael said:

Having been through a two year journey, moving away from vinyl to digital I know how hard it is to get to vinyl quality & beyond. 
 

I was using SME 20/3 TT, with mods & upgraded PSU. Van de hul XPG Colibri cartridge, ASR Basis Exclusive phono stage. High quality cables.
 

I decided to move to digital, why? I like when new music comes along, so I would purchase a lot of new vinyl. Problem was I just could not bear the terrible sound quality coming from newly released vinyl. Only 1 out of 30 records sounded any good. 
 

So my journey began with digital. Early days it sounded terrible compared to my vinyl setup but after two years of being on this forum & learning what needed to be achieved before digital would get close. I think I’ve finally managed it. If anything I would say I’m more satisfied now than  I was (yes I had my vinyl rig set up properly). I’ll never really know to be honest as I can’t compare, as I’ve sold my TT. 
 

I really didn’t appreciate I would have to spend so much time & money to get there. Now turned into a hobby, which I’m trying to get away from. 
 

I’ve kept my vinyl collection just in case I add a TT in future! 😂

Try moving 3K LP's..... your back issues will make you appreciate digital more and more

 

Planning to do this again. I think I may be a little crazy......

[botrytis]

7 hours ago, One and a half said:

With computer playback, there's the added bonus of transmission noise to listen to

 

Same with analog - scratches, dirt, static, pops, hum, vibration, and of course if using low output cartridges amplification of noise from that.

 

People seem to overlook that noise due to emotional attachment to analog (being brought up with it).

 

 

[botrytis]

Since vinyl channel separations is less, the bass and treble are compressed and many audiophiles were brought up with it, it is more or less your brain subjectively picking one over the other.

 

For me it just depends....

[botrytis]

Youtube videos really are not good at giving ALL the nuances from a system/room. 

[botrytis]

This is good enough for me 😁

[botrytis]

Just now, EvilTed said:

Analog

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[botrytis]

7 hours ago, Rexp said:

Mastering is the same, the more natural listenable rendition is provided by the turntable. I'm gonna guess the Chord Dave is at fault, never liked that DAC.

 

 

I think youtube listening is great for casual and figuring new artists out. For listening and comparing equipment, it is not worth the effort.

 

You are also comparing a 20K USD TT with accoutrements and then comparing to a DAC that is 2-3K? Not really a fair comparison. This is always the issue with analog people, They spend massive amounts on vinyl, then buy a cheap DAC and say, 'See vinyl is better'. Unfair comparison - like comparing a 1972 VW Beetle with a Brand-new Mercedes. They both work, but is it really fair?

[botrytis]

16 minutes ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

One factor behind my overall  preference toward analog is my perception of how digital music can easily tilt toward the side of harshness. I  generally hear that less from analog source components except perhaps with some MC cartridges with peaky top ends. I've got a Denafrips Pontus II DAC which has been working great and sounds exceptionally smooth for digital. I recently added roller ball type isolation footers which seems to have improved resolution and detail from the DAC, but the resulting sound also seems to be harsher. In fact, when I first added the footers, I was surprised to hear that the sound was harsher. I then realized I had left my DAC in "NOS" mode. Switching to the OS Slow filter made the sound a bit smoother again. My initial perceptions were that "NOS" mode had more grain and texture while the OS Slow filter was smoother overall. Before adding the isolation footer, it was a toss up between NOS and OS Slow modes as to what I preferred. However, I definitely seem to prefer the smoother sounding OS Slow filter when the isolation footers are in place and seem to add resolution to my system.  Perhaps more resolution for digital components can bring out harshness that isn't so apparent in less resolving digital systems?

 

I'm going to listen some more and determine if I leave the footers in or not. Indeed, for all I know what I'm hearing could be a figment of my imagination.

 

Not true anymore. From 2000 on, there has been no real 'digital harshness' in players and DACs. That is old news and is out the window.

 

Digital is still evolving, and vinyl has been static for 50 years.

[botrytis]

Right - I can't stand vinyl surface noise which makes any digital noise irrelevant (to some the noise is romantic, for me it is annoying). I have two TT's and 3000 LPs that I don't listen to anymore.

 

That is all, to me, expectation bias. You have it in your head that digital is noisy and when you hear digital it fills the noise in for you. That is how the human brain works. 

 

Here is an interesting article on some recent brain research.

 

brain hallucinates math

 

It equated the human brain to a quantum computer, and they explain why.

[botrytis]

13 hours ago, Rexp said:

I do have a growing ignore list but squashing Franks audio myths is hard to resist.

 

Let him keep his fantasies. You are not going to change his mind and in fact, will force one to usually double down on their believes (whether it real or imaginary).