Analog: Still Better?

[fas42]

As I have said many, many times before, it's just harder with digital ... 😁. Reason being, that the listening mind finds it easier to forgive, compensate for the audible shortcomings of analog - a pretty good analogue will always beat a pretty good digital; a superb digital will always beat a superb analogue - the margins of 'error' that matter most for subjective satisfaction are far tighter with digital than with analogue; it requires more effort, usually on the part of the owner, to achieve the necessary 'precision', of everything.

 

Which leads to the phenomenon of the SQ snapping into focus, for digital - if one is a tiny, tiny bit off what's required, then the realness factor doesn't kick in - it's an epiphany 😜, when one nails it ... like finally hitting the bullseye of the dartboard, after hours of practicing, trying to score in the dead centre - "a miss is as good as a mile".

[fas42]

The audio friend up the road has both vinyl and digital setups refined to a high order - which makes it easy to compare the experiences. Over the years there has been a seesawing of which has been "top dog" - currently the analogue setup is definitely ahead. The other times occurred when the LP side had some issues; and then digital won convincingly. When both mediums are firing at close to their best there is little to choose in the sense of creating an immersive presentation - digital is usually mastered to have a bolder presentation, and so wins in that sense.

 

Warmup time for vinyl is also a consideration - takes playing of at least 4 sides for all the mechanicals, and phono preamp circuitry to fully stabilise, and the SQ potential to be close to the maximum possible.

[fas42]

That Swing Out Sister, Where in the World, track would be as good as any to work with - the CD sounding dull is a giveaway that the playback chain is not up to scratch ... rather than bouncing around, trying to find music that sounds goods on say digital, stick with a certain track, and use that as a reference for how you're faring - keep trying things until that particular tracks starts to come good; matches how you know it can sound, on another medium.

 

The key point is, all digital tracks should sound as good as, or better than LP versions - if they don't, that means there's a weakness in the chain; the big trick is to track down the culprit(s).

[fas42]

Just now, One and a half said:

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

 

Well, if talking about recent, pop releases you're most likely right - but I have close to zero interest in any of the output of the 'artists' over the last decade or so; I'm essentially talking of material, as released, prior to 2000.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, One and a half said:

You haven't considered the source . The playback chain is fine, plays SACD without a problem and those CD that are up to it, also with no side effects.

 

Source as in, the data encoded in the medium's format? Let's say I rip the contents of a so-so CD track, do an optimum conversion of that data to the SACD format, and burn it onto a disc - and play both the original CD, and the new SACD on your chain - will they sound identical, or will one be "better" than the other?

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This question is meaningless as, in my experience, the masterings of CD and SACD releases of the same album are rarely the same.

 

I'm thinking of the point that CDs sound 'dull' compared to the LP version - an extremely common comment in years gone by. I have certainly experienced listless, boring digital replay far, far too often over the years - IME, this is all about sub-par replay chains - fix the issues, and that "useless!" CD comes alive  ...

[fas42]

Also connected with "what is better", is this mysterious, "noise floor". I have just come across this post by @JohnSwenson, which to me pretty well nails what this strange thing is ...

 

 

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, GUTB said:

In regards to disc playback, I've been "impressed" only a few times. One of those was a European CD player...trying to remember what it was for the life of me, I remember them showing off a demag / ionozing treatment process and the sounds produced was actually very impressive. Someone know which manufacturer I'm talking about??

 

Big Hint: digital SQ suffers when static buildup occurs, and is not handled in some manner. Best solution is to carefully investigate every area of the rig, and use whatever treatments, adjustments, and organising that prevent, or control charging behaviours.

 

Quote

 

Another one was an Esoteric room at an audio show. They were playing a SACD on a system I forget except the chain was completely Esoteric. I remember that especially because the Schiit room was right next door and it stuck with me how completely the Esoteric destroyed the Schiit system. I wonder if the Schiit system could have benefited greatly from power conditioning.

 

Did the Esoteric room use sophisticated power conditioning? For many digital systems it can mean the difference between entrancing - and unlistenable ...

[fas42]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 Huh ??? 

Did you rub the CDs first with a polyester jumper ?  😁

Several years ago Silverlight (Geoff) from NYC did a series of tests with me including Cleaning fluids ,demagnetising ,deionising etc.

 yet we both preferred the uploaded version where the CD was cleaned with warm soapy water and rinsed  properly.

 BTW, many members spend only a fraction of the amount on the digital side compared with what they spend on TTs ,stand alone Low noise RIAA Preamps  and high quality cartridges etc. then blame the digital side.

 

Well, at one stage I worked out a whole ritual of how a CD was taken from its case, and placed in the player, and how play was started 😁 - to minimise chances of static being transferred to the disc. For example, I used a version of this in the NAD CDP, in the setup of a year or so ago. Did it make a difference? A couple of times it seemed to help - so I kept it up ... no rigorous testing, though.

 

From how the mains plugs are inserted in the wall socket, through to the mounting of the speakers, static might cause an issue - I assume that any and everything could play a role; until I convince myself that no change can be heard when I try varying something.

 

I haven't spent much money - but I've spent a huge amount of time, over the years, doing little experiments "to see if something mattered" - this has taught me a lot, and means that zero cost, or close to it, tweaking gets me a long way towards the sound I'm after.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 How can any static electricity on a disc affect a Laser Diode or the mechanism unless the CD is poorly held in place ?

 

 Static from the above stated by you is unlikely to be generated unless there is a poor connection, and this would be even worse with low level analogue sources such as LP..

You can do better than that Frank !  😄

 

Alex, the first thing I worry about is whether something affects the SQ. And if it does, then I do something about it. The why there is an effect, well ... I might worry about that, sometime down the track 😉.

 

Static effects are a mongrel - I can do "crazy things", and have the SQ degrade, or pick up again. The literature is extremely poor on analysing static, mainly because no-one really understands it! Sure, there's tonnes of material on how to combat it, and how to use it for doing something - but as for predicting whether static will occur or impact in some situation, with a decent hit rate ... you've got Buckley's! 😁

[fas42]

12 hours ago, One and a half said:

No, the original purchased CD or SACD with jewel box, glossy paper et al, played in an appropriate player like in my profile. when a DSD_DISC is created, the dsf sounds better on the SACD player than they do from digital chain from computer and IT network. By better I mean less annoying to listen to.

 

So, the mastering as far as the music is concerned is identical - the actual music content is the same. If one format sounds "less annoying", that means firstly that the overall distortion of the playback chain, starting with the reading of the physical file on the disc, is different; and that the distortion of the chain using the SACD player is subjectively less disturbing.

 

No CD should be "annoying" to listen to. My approach to getting digital right is very simple - if I make some changes, and a marginal disc now sounds fine, I then steadily go through my pile of difficult recordings. If every one of them does well, I'm in a good place - if at least one is still sour, that then becomes the measuring stick for making the next move.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, One and a half said:

Too simplistic and grossly inaccurate (no surprises here). Mastering for CD and LP is different, heard of RIAA curve? 

 

I'm talking about the mastering for CD, versus SACD, okay? No LP's were involved, it wasn't part of what my post was about.

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

As I said already, these are rarely the same.

 

@One and a half is talking of generating a DSD_DISC from the contents of the CD, and that when playing the dsf that it "sounds better on the SACD player" - same mastering.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, One and a half said:

A DSD_DISC is a DVD-R copied with DSD files, specifically .DSF format. It can be read by (most) Sony SACD, Accuphase, maybe Marantz. The disc has no redbook content whatsover as PCM files cannot be read.

DSDDiscFormatSpecs.pdf 94.77 kB · 0 downloads

 

But one can convert RB files to DSF files, which is why I asked the question,

 

Quote

Let's say I rip the contents of a so-so CD track, do an optimum conversion of that data to the SACD format, and burn it onto a disc - and play both the original CD, and the new SACD on your chain - will they sound identical, or will one be "better" than the other?

 

Your answer didn't clarify what your thoughts about this were ...

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

It's easier to listen to digital, but when I have the time to just listen to music, I seem to choose to listen to records. I can't point to anything specific, but the sound of vinyl feels more organic to me. I say 'feel' as I can't point to anything specific in the sound that would make me think that.

 

"More organic" is another way of saying that distortion that "I can't point to" as being obviously present, is no longer subjectively audible. Digital system were once notorious for injecting this in vast quantities, but have steadily improved over the years to the point where even very low cost units are capable of getting this right - with a little help from a knowledgeable practitioner, 🙃.

 

Vinyl rigs, and digital rigs, will sound equivalent in the level of their 'organicness' - if both are tweaked to the necessary level. The type of tweaking that's essential will differ between the two formats in many areas, but ultimately deliver identical results, as far as listening satisfaction is concerned.

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

I could not disagree more...

 

Digital systems do not YET offer the same fidelity - regardless of cost. Noise, errors/glitches in DAC conversion, jitter, are well known sources of degradation in digital sound reproduction. 

 

They don't because the designers, largely, still don't get it ... they obsess about easily measured parameters, and tend to ignore factors that really matter, with regard to subjective qualities.

 

Quote

 

No level of tweaking can correct the issues of digital systems. You can make compromises, but you are fooling yourself in thinking that you can "compensate" for the inherent flaws of a DAC by tweaking everything around it. No level of tweaking will ever correct noise/glitches INHERENT in current digital conversion systems. 

 

Huhh?!! Tweaking is exactly how to correct sub-par digital playback - the raw parts are fine, but not enough care is taken to completely isolate the workings from the environment ... this is why very expensive DAC setups, built with Swiss precision, say, do so much better.

 

Quote

 

Sure, a low noise power supply, an optimized seever, an audiophile switch, or any similar gizmo may improve things somewhat, but will not fundamentally correct DAC flaws. 

 

There are no inherent DAC flaws! Better than any analogue playback was possible from digital, soon after the start of CDP era - but the special cases were always ignored ... the assumption was that because the specs were so good, that nothing else mattered. Which is never the case, in any field of human endeavour.

 

Quote

 

There is still much progress to be made in the digital domain, and this is no secret! Audiophiles know this (witness all the discussions on digital audio on this forum) and most engineers working on this topic know this also and will admit it. 

 

The progress comes through understanding that attention to detail is everything, in getting the best from digital playback chains. Just slapping together "high performance" parts doesn't automatically create a superb supercar - the latter only occurs when the engineering of the whole is finessed through ongoing refinement - that's how it works in the audio field, too.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The base for the claim is that every serious DAC manufacturer will admit that digital sources/digital cables matter when theoretically they should not! And they will also admit that they do not know why! 

 

 

 

They matter - because digital playback chains are very sensitive to noise. Not in the digital domain of course, but rather in the the digital to analogue conversion area, and subsequent pure analogue circuitry. Just putting things in different boxes, and giving a couple of feet clearance between them, is close to useless if you want to solve these sort of problems - very few people have the right mindset to properly grapple with what needs to be done, it seems. Which is why there is so much floundering, using 'crazy' methods to try and improve things ...

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Unfortunately, many of our favourite recordings in Digital were made using an immature technology, compared with a mature technology 

 

Turns out that the 'immature' recording technology doesn't matter, ultimately - it just means that the playback side has to be on its best behaviour for these to 'work'. Which takes effort to achieve - sometimes, it's simpler to "blame the recording!" 😜

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Its not a question of mindset. The facts are there - and the people who actually manufacture the equipment you listen to know it and say so!

 

Your method, whatever it is, is not going to tranform a digital system into an analog system - if you think so you need to spend more time listening carefully to a vinyl source. 

 

Have heard plenty of vinyl. Including one which was a copy of Harry Pearson's original Absolute Sound setup - this was 3 decades ago. That was exceptional - but not better. In fact, recent vinyl has gone backwards - last audio show was disappointing, on every LP setup.

 

Have an audio friend up the road, who does both vinyl and digital; who I visit often. His vinyl, at its best, is way ahead of most TT systems I've heard - which is better? His digital, or his vinyl? ... The answer depends upon which visit I care to recall ... 🙂.

 

26 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Digital certainly has many advantages. But I perfectly understand why many people enjoy vinyl as well. 

 

Serious audiophiles should have both. You can then easily remind yourself, when testing new digital gear, what is achieved and remains to be accomplished. 

 

 

 

You don't "test new digital gear"- you debug it! Most audio rigs are the equivalent of car lemons - they need attention to bring them up to scratch; because they have so many obvious flaws in the sound, that need to be sorted.

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I disagree. Add to that the damage done to the quality of the original masters at the later , mixing and mastering stages as evidenced by some of the tantalisingly good corrected versions from John Dyson. It's very hard though to reverse engineer the damage done to many, when many mastering engineers used different methods although some impressive results can be obtained .

 

e.g. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oimvnljlx9c2p6p/School .wav?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5pcu42hwu2sclt/02-Bloody Well Right.wav?dl=0

Compare these with your own CD .

 I will remove the links in several hours time  .

 

We've been here plenty of times, Alex 🤪 ... in car terms, I want a vehicle that when I see an interesting road on the map, that I can just drive along it, and enjoy what's to be discovered. If I need to send out a road repair and resurfacing crew every other time, or fear that my car will be shaken to bits, etc - then I lose interest in doing such, very fast ... so, I put my energy into making my conveyance capable of handling anything - vastly better expenditure of time and money, in my book 😉.

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Yes, I am aware that you are on a crusade to convince everyone on this forum that you can get great sound from basic components with your secret recipes. 

 

I enjoy listening to Spotify on my phone with a pair of Koss PortaPro. So what? We can't do better? 

 

The fact that digital has some flaws does not mean we have to completely give up and listen to music using a DVD player (as your profile suggests).

 

The "crusade" is to make people aware that highly satisfying playback is available from most audio systems - but which fail to deliver because of weaknesses in the overall integrity of the chain; something which is only rarely solved by throwing money, and a high churn rate of bits, at the situation. If it were otherwise, I would be blown away by how magnificent the exceedingly expensive rigs I've come across the years sound - unfortunately, my usual thought is, how long will I have to put up with the highly irritating nature of what I'm listening to ... 😉.

 

The "secret sauce" is, attention to detail - worked 35 years ago, and still works. Most people want to play with expensive kit, for the sake of doing that - that's a separate hobby, and has not much to do with getting best SQ, unfortunately.

 

Most people can't understand that using a $100 DVD player, versus a $30,000 CD transport, is not what matters - you see, in audio, money isn't that important - it might help you feel better about the rig; but only plays a minor role in getting the best out of recordings ...

 

[fas42]

6 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

It is certainly a refreshing viewpoint, and I am all for thinking outside the box, but this topic here is analog versus digital. You cannot make abstraction of the limits/issues of digital, which are well known, and think that you can transform a digital system into an analog system. It is as simple as that. Nothing more to add in this thread...

 

My interest is in, as the OP stated, "MUCH more life-like sound" - it's been generalised that analogue does this better than digital, which I assume is the point of you saying "think that you can transform a digital system into an analog system" ... well, digital can do this - but it just turns out to be harder.  There are no meaningful limits with digital - but typically, plenty of issues.

 

6 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Edit: attention to detail is something everyone does, I hope, and therefore not meaningful in itself. I pay attention to details, and many others certainly do, yet our systems are all different! You'll have to be more specific (in your other threads) if you want to be convincing. 

 

Attention to detail has to be primary, not secondary - a way of explaining what this means in real life is to consider acquiring some new component, with a great reputation, or specs - most people will look forward to there being "something special" about it, from the moment it's plugged in; my approach is to listen for what it's doing wrong, and immediately start experimenting with the setup, to work out where the issues may be.

 

Yes, systems are different - because the weaknesses will vary, depending upon what components are used. Meaning solutions for each are most likely quite different; but, the end result should be that they all "sound the same" - because their individual signatures are attenuated enough so the only thing you're aware of are the qualities of the recording.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Pull the other leg. It whistles 🤣

Not even all analogue sources sound exactly  the same ,due in part to the PSU area etc. as well as with Vinyl  where almost all cartridges sound a little different

 

Yes. Normal playback injects too many distortion characteristics - and the signature of various parts of the chain holds sway. The goal is to eliminate that happening - and the Absolute Sound results.

 

The satisfaction in what I do, is pushing a particular combo of components to the point where this happens - the inherent sound of a recording track emerges, to match what it has sounded in the past when at a peak - on a completely different system ... this must happen, if a replay setup has any claims to "accuracy".

[fas42]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

That is not possible with Vinyl, as Cartridges for example all have different characteristics, especially in variations of frequency response, as well as variations  in how their Phono Preamps RIAA EQ is implemented,  it's accuracy, and even the type of preamp used such as Vacuum tube, I.C or discrete semiconductors. The same applies to digital to a certain extent dependent on the type of DAC used, even the type of DAC chips used. The DSD 179x family for example, sounds noticeably different to say the Sabre ES9018 etc. as an example. Then as you are now well aware, the PSU area matters too.

 

Ummm, 'magic' happens when SQ reaches a certain standard - the mind takes over, and compensates for all those millions of fiddly things you mention; especially those that relate to FR. Most audio people have probably never experienced this, but it's quite remarkable when it happens - even when you are fully aware that the sound is being manipulated, subjectively it doesn't register - as a simple example, wind the treble control all the way from minimum to maximum - the sound "doesn't change".

 

Impossible!! ... I can hear many people yelling. But that is indeed what happens - and the reason is obvious: in real life, the FR of sounds we are familiar with dramatically swings, crazily so, as soon as we move even slightly ... this can be demonstrated, as a measurable thing, exceedingly easily. And we would go mad if this was indeed also the subjective impression - the sense of whatever was being listened to would be going nuts, inside our skull, as we moved even a tiny bit. To stop such insanity, our minds constantly equalise what we hear, so it "sounds the same" ... which is precisely what should be aimed for as the experience when listening to audio playback ...

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Yes, I have some of those as well. I have very bad sounding vinyl (ex: Lester Young broadcasts from the 1940s, bad sound but fantastic music). 

 

In my system, with my ears, I am just surprised how good a relatively modest vinyl rig can sound. So the only explanation I have is that these flaws are maybe not so important for musical enjoyment? It seems to me that vinyl is doing something right that even the most sophisticated digital systems fail to achieve, still today, sole decades after the introduction of the CD. 

 

 

Which means that you're not so far from intuitively understanding what's going on ... the vinyl playback is not highlighting the deficiencies of the recording, by exaggerating them with the wrong type of added playback chain distortion. Something that digital systems often have troubles with.

 

What you seem intent on confirming, to yourself, is that digital is inherently incapable of "getting it right" - this was wrong thinking, over 3 decades; and is even more wrong these days. Which means you will probably unconsciously always sabotage every listening session you're at - because it's more important for you, to hang onto that belief as compared to being able to hear competent digital sound.