Analog: Still Better?

[GregWormald]

For the first time ever I listened for hours to digital music that didn't leave me wanting to turn it down or off or leave me fatigued. Was it as good as my analogue? Don't know, don't care, I'm into music not comparisons.

 

The change was a Denafrips r-to-r ladder DAC (Ares II). I ordered a Denafrips.

[fas42]

It can take a long, long time to get digital sound to snap into shape - once there, there's no reason to steal a glance, longingly, at an "analogue" rig.

 

It was possible in the 1980's ... as mentioned elsewhere, our player was fed a diet of disks from morning to night, and beyond ... the fatigue factor never figured, 😀.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

After spending a lot more time listening to vinyl and comparing it to digital  I have come to the conclusion that the main differences are mostly due to the quality of the "mastering".

 

My initial point, that a fairly basic vinyl rig is very satisfying, remains true (in my opinion) simply because it is a more mature technology. Of course, there are many ways to get vinyl "wrong" as there are also many parameters (and every part of a vinyl rig can be tweaked!). It is easy to get digital wrong as well (and we probably have not yet unlocked the full potential of digital playback).

 

The idea that vinyl is more pleasant because it is "distorted" is questionable - if you do find identical masterings, it is not so easy to tell them apart (aside for obvious issues related to cracks/pops, whether due to static electricity - a real PITA - or wear). 

 

It is surprisingly difficult, however, to find identical masterings of digital and vinyl albums to make those comparisons. 

 

Rather than waste time arguing about the superiority of vinyl versus digital, it would be more beneficial to have recommendations on the quality of releases.

 

I love listening to my files, and  I have invested a lot of time and money building and documenting my  collection, but I will certainly continue buying records when:

- the album is not available in digital format (there are still quite a lot of those)

- the digital versions are poor and I am confident that an orignal vinyl version is superior (ex: Mosaic Record box set only issued on vinyl, also available on poorly mastered CDs by other distributors).

 

 

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

After spending a lot more time listening to vinyl and comparing it to digital  I have come to the conclusion that the main differences are mostly due to the quality of the "mastering".

 

My initial point, that a fairly basic vinyl rig is very satisfying, remains true (in my opinion) simply because it is a more mature technology. Of course, there are many ways to get vinyl "wrong" as there are also many parameters (and every part of a vinyl rig can be tweaked!). It is easy to get digital wrong as well (and we probably have not yet unlocked the full potential of digital playback).

 

The idea that vinyl is more pleasant because it is "distorted" is questionable - if you do find identical masterings, it is not so easy to tell them apart (aside for obvious issues related to cracks/pops, whether due to static electricity - a real PITA - or wear). 

 

It is surprisingly difficult, however, to find identical masterings of digital and vinyl albums to make those comparisons. 

 

Rather than waste time arguing about the superiority of vinyl versus digital, it would be more beneficial to have recommendations on the quality of releases.

 

I love listening to my files, and  I have invested a lot of time and money building and documenting my  collection, but I will certainly continue buying records when:

- the album is not available in digital format (there are still quite a lot of those)

- the digital versions are poor and I am confident that an orignal vinyl version is superior (ex: Mosaic Record box set only issued on vinyl, also available on poorly mastered CDs by other distributors).

 

 

Agreed, I think many vinyl fans go out and buy a digital version of their favourite recordings and are bitterly disappointed. The problem is the mastering or the A to D, not digital per say. 

[One and a half]

On 3/2/2021 at 1:11 PM, GregWormald said:

For the first time ever I listened for hours to digital music that didn't leave me wanting to turn it down or off or leave me fatigued. Was it as good as my analogue? Don't know, don't care, I'm into music not comparisons.

 

The change was a Denafrips r-to-r ladder DAC (Ares II). I ordered a Denafrips.

What did you have before the Ares II?

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

Agreed, I think many vinyl fans go out and buy a digital version of their favourite recordings and are bitterly disappointed. The problem is the mastering or the A to D, not digital per say. 

 

Yes, I can understand the reaction that the digital is not "nice" to listen to, like the analogue was - I had this very experience many times, in the early years; buying an album that was such a major part of my youth, etc - and thinking, uh-oh, as the tracks clicked by ...

 

What was happening? Well, it's not the mastering ... it's a combination of the technology used to make many of those classic albums, and the ability of vinyl to be 'forgiving' - they balanced out, and meant that very ordinary record players produced a highly satisfying presentation - the impact of what was recorded, just worked. Then, when converting the tapes to digital, all those aspects of the production that got rounded, or nicely blended in the vinyl chain, were there in their full glory to hear - and many of these albums then took no prisoners - I remember Doors albums being well and truly in that basket.

 

Were the transfers faulty? No, they just had characteristics which accentuated digital misbehaviour - and were not comfortable to listen to - if the digital playback was below par!  The solution was to improve the CD playback chain, and then the full glory of those tracks were revealed; now more bountiful than the vinyl renderings ever were ...

 

I mention the Doors, because earlier today I tried LA Woman from a cold start. And for the first time I could really pick that the setup needed some warming up - there was an edginess to the sound, to the vocals. This stabilised after about 3 tracks - and by the end of the album, I had zero to complain about. Until now, no other genre of recording has showed this characteristic so vividly, in the latest iteration of the active speakers - IOW, the nature of the original tapes is such the slightest lacking in the replay is going to be very noticeable ... it's just part of the landscape for recordings of that era.

[GregWormald]

4 hours ago, One and a half said:

What did you have before the Ares II?

I didn't actually orderer the Ares II but a Pontus 2, as a better match for the rest of my system.

 

Before that I've had CD players from Marantz and Harman Kardon and latterly an Audio-gd NFB-2 DAC, which was pretty good but still left me less enthused than my LPs. 

 

I also seemed to notice that longish digital sessions seemed to exacerbate my tinnitus. 5+ hours of the Denafrips r-to-r did not.

[Rexp]

Supertramp, you know it will sound good on vinyl or tape. 

 

[fas42]

Not bad ... almost as good as the CD, 🤣 🤣.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Not bad ... almost as good as the CD, 🤣 🤣.

You're probably aware of my dislike of CD's, I'm probably in the minority but some agree:

 

https://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/métronome-technologie-le-dac-digital-analogue-converter-dac

 

[John Dyson]

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

Supertramp, you know it will sound good on vinyl or tape. 

 

Oh man, you would have to show a 'Supertramp' album.  It has been a bad habit for me to use their recordings for some of my testing purposes.   Looks like another few hours to look at Supertramp again!!!   (I mostly use 'Breakfast', 'Crime', 'Quiet' and 'Crisis' for testing.)    It really IS habit forming to try to make sure that something works super well, then knowing that there is a problem -- fixing it, then trying again -- ad-infinitum.   Some of the supertramp recordings are a special challenge.

 

I did just listen, and ignoring the delay distortions and other problems because of micing the system -- it SOUNDS like that the recording just MIGHT be a pure one, and not the FA that I hate so much.

 

[March Audio]

On 9/4/2020 at 11:10 AM, GUTB said:

So, my experiences up until now seems to clearly indicate that analog sounds better than digital. From experiences with my own system, my records produce MUCH more life-like sound, something which I characterize as a major difference in dynamic performance (note, not dynamic range). The suddenness, force, acceleration, etc, of dynamic swings. For example, someone shouting into a mic, or a strong movement of the orchestra. My digital, as resolving, as quiet, as clear as I have made it over years of tweaking, just doesn't compare; if one system sounds real and the other doesn't, the real-sounding system is superior no matter how you shake it.

 

What are others' experiences?

I'm curious about this as it leads to an obvious question.

 

How do you define "life like" sound?

 

Clearly you were not present at any of the recordings, so how do you know what it sounded like?

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I'm curious about this as it leads to an obvious question.

 

How do you define "life like" sound?

 

Clearly you were not present at any of the recordings, so how do you know what it sounded like?

 

This is similar to the current discussion about the goal of listeners with respect to high end audio . 

 

Even if one knows what a violin sounds like, s/he likely doesn't know what every violin sounds like and every recording studio and symphony hall, etc... 

 

I'm sure violinists say all violins sound identical and Strads are overrated :~)

[semente]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm sure violinists say all violins sound identical

 

Even if they did, not all mics have the same technical performance ("sound" the same) and where you place them makes a difference too.

[March Audio]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This is similar to the current discussion about the goal of listeners with respect to high end audio . 

 

Even if one knows what a violin sounds like, s/he likely doesn't know what every violin sounds like and every recording studio and symphony hall, etc... 

 

I'm sure violinists say all violins sound identical and Strads are overrated :~)

Indeed.

 

I will try and post a recording tomorrow which shows how sound can change from raw from the microphones to two different mixes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Even if they did, not all mics have the same technical performance ("sound" the same) and where you place them makes a difference too.

 

So true

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here's a good article we just published a few minutes ago.

 

 

[charlesphoto]

53 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

I'm sure violinists say all violins sound identical and Strads are overrated :~)

Yeah, those idiots like Isabelle Faust that insist on playing priceless period instruments. Don't they know they could get one out of China that measures much better and costs a 1/1000th of the price? 

[Summit]

"Lifelike" is an adjective that relates to anything that simulates real life, in accordance with its laws. Its goal is to immerse individuals into what is called a lifelike experience. It gets as close as possible to real life behavior, appearance, senses, etc., therefore enabling its subject to experience what is happening as if it were real. In other words, simulating reality with its physical laws is the objective of lifelike experience.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelike_experience 

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Summit said:

"Lifelike" is an adjective that relates to anything that simulates real life, in accordance with its laws. Its goal is to immerse individuals into what is called a lifelike experience. It gets as close as possible to real life behavior, appearance, senses, etc., therefore enabling its subject to experience what is happening as if it were real. In other words, simulating reality with its physical laws is the objective of lifelike experience.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelike_experience 

 

On issue with this, when it comes to home audio reproduction, is that we don't know which life we are attempting to simulate. Which recording studio, which concert hall, which seating position, which microphone placement, which brand and model of microphone, which mixing engineer, etc...

[davide256]

On 3/6/2021 at 1:35 AM, GregWormald said:

I didn't actually orderer the Ares II but a Pontus 2, as a better match for the rest of my system.

 

Before that I've had CD players from Marantz and Harman Kardon and latterly an Audio-gd NFB-2 DAC, which was pretty good but still left me less enthused than my LPs. 

 

I also seemed to notice that longish digital sessions seemed to exacerbate my tinnitus. 5+ hours of the Denafrips r-to-r did not.

Do you think a Pontus would solve steely massed strings in Tchaikovsky? The Iris DDC has helped a lot in my setup but analog still wins out for being soothing

vs edgy on massed strings.

[davide256]

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

On issue with this, when it comes to home audio reproduction, is that we don't know which life we are attempting to simulate. Which recording studio, which concert hall, which seating position, which microphone placement, which brand and model of microphone, which mixing engineer, etc...

Which doesn't affect recognizing/enjoying the sound signature of a superb quality instrument played by a talented professional. Sizzle isn't something

you control as a musician but the steak is yours to own.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, davide256 said:

 

Which doesn't affect recognizing/enjoying the sound signature of a superb quality instrument played by a talented professional. Sizzle isn't something

you control as a musician but the steak is yours to own.

Totally agree. I can enjoy Pearl Jam on an AM radio or my main audio system.

[ssh]

"On issue with this, when it comes to home audio reproduction, is that we don't know which life we are attempting to simulate. Which recording studio, which concert hall, which seating position, which microphone placement, which brand and model of microphone, which mixing engineer, etc... "

 

This recording is from a 1974 show in Des Moines. Wish you could see the faces of fellow DeadHeads that had attended the show when they hear this disc. Set, setting, set-up.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Rexp said:

You're probably aware of my dislike of CD's, I'm probably in the minority but some agree:

 

https://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/métronome-technologie-le-dac-digital-analogue-converter-dac

 

 

A gentle jibe at that "dislike", on my part, of course ... 😉.

 

CDs are Just Another Music Data Storage Method - it's how well the reading of that data is done, with respect to not spraying electrical noise and crap into the rest of the chain that determines what the listening experience will be like.