Analog: Still Better?

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, EvilTed said:

Surprisingly, when you use a good high end turntable + arm + cartridge + cable + phono stage + preamp + mint condition records, there are no pops, crackles, tracking error, vinyl roar or anything else. Just inky black silence...

 

I'm not the slightest bit surprised ... that's why I said "unless one goes to the effort of doing enough tweaking".

 

An early reference for me, from vinyl, was a decent copy of Harry Pearson's setup - decades ago ...

[EvilTed]

34 minutes ago, March Audio said:

So what did the analogue master tape sound like?

Analog

[botrytis]

Just now, EvilTed said:

Analog

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Rexp said:

No it doesn't

 

... in your experience, 😁 ...

[March Audio]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Thanks for that ...

 

2. is superior, to my ears - by a big margin. 1. sounds, "produced", and distortion is far more obvious.

Ok, Frank votes 2.

 

Anyone else?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Ok, Frank votes 2.

 

Anyone else?

I’m on my phone and don’t think the speakers really cut it for this experiment. 

[davide256]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Are you 100% sure its not the recording? 

Happens consistently on all but the very best recordings

[Rexp]

29 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Happens consistently on all but the very best recordings

That's the thing, most digital recordings are flawed IMO. 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, Rexp said:

That's the thing, most digital recordings are flawed IMO. 

 

That's where many people are missing out on understanding what's going on ... the recording doesn't have a problem; but the qualities of the mastering strongly highlight where there are shortcomings in the playback chain - if one doesn't address the latter, then you can go around in circles for years and years - never really solving the problem. If you nail where the digital playback is going astray, then you've solved it ... until, possibly, something is changed in the chain or environment, without careful thought ... Groundhog Day, 🤪.

[Rexp]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

That's where many people are missing out on understanding what's going on ... the recording doesn't have a problem; but the qualities of the mastering strongly highlight where there are shortcomings in the playback chain - if one doesn't address the latter, then you can go around in circles for years and years - never really solving the problem. If you nail where the digital playback is going astray, then you've solved it ... until, possibly, something is changed in the chain or environment, without careful thought ... Groundhog Day, 🤪.

At least in the movie, the character snaps out of it. When are you going to snap out of it? 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

At least in the movie, the character snaps out of it. When are you going to snap out of it? 

 

I could ask the same of you ... 😀

[GregWormald]

19 hours ago, davide256 said:

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.

I can't answer that—I don't listen to massed strings.

While I have enjoyed some classical at times, it's not something I buy.

[March Audio]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Thanks for that ...

 

2. is superior, to my ears - by a big margin. 1. sounds, "produced", and distortion is far more obvious.

When I have played this to people elsewhere they also tend to prefer 2, the one they think is more "life like".

 

However 2 is the version that had been compressed, equalised and reverb added.

 

1 has has just been panned and levels changed.

 

Version 2 is the "distorted" and more "produced" version and quite different to what came off the microphone feeds.

[bluesman]

17 hours ago, March Audio said:

An individuals emotional response is theirs and theirs alone.  It cannot be applied to anyone else

Actually, emotion is quite contagious - there's an old saying that it’s easier to catch an emotion than it is to catch a cold.

 

How we feel about and remember an experience is strongly influenced by the reactions of others who shared it with us. If you're surrounded by people who are obviously loving a performance, you're much more likely to love it too.  The phenomenon is also independent of the subject.  So, for example, you'll probably remember having loved a wine that you first tried in great company with others who expressed the same opinion.  This is a common reason for people to buy a wine they enjoyed once while out with friends and find it nowhere near as good as they recalled it to be when they drink it at home.  They "caught" the joy of the social setting, and it subconsciously influenced both their perception and memory of the wine.

 

Here's a great intro to the concept from MIchigan State University, and here's the meat:

 

"Emotional contagion is simply when one person’s emotions or behaviors are mimicked by another person’s. Often times, these emotions or behaviors happen subconsciously. According to “Are You Catching Other People's Emotions?” in U.S. World and News Report, upbeat emotions such as enthusiasm and joy, as well as negative ones such as sadness, fear and anger, are easily passed from one person to another, often without either party realizing it."

 

 

[fas42]

8 hours ago, March Audio said:

When I have played this to people elsewhere they also tend to prefer 2, the one they think is more "life like".

 

However 2 is the version that had been compressed, equalised and reverb added.

 

1 has has just been panned and levels changed.

 

Version 2 is the "distorted" and more "produced" version and quite different to what came off the microphone feeds.

 

Well, you've thrown me ... with 1. there is most definitely more reverb to the voice - unless I got them the wrong way around ... I'll take another look.

 

One's tagged Tony, the other Alan - which is which?

[fas42]

People talk about the foot tappin' quality of playback - and that's as good a phrase as any to use ... digital playback historically has struggled to get this happening - the curse of digital distortion anomalies, which are so hard to eliminate.

 

Which is not the same thing as not being able to eliminate them - how it works is that the SQ snaps into place; one moment it's wrong - and then it's right ... this is when people who have zero interest in audiophile stuff prick up their ears, and say, "Hey, that sounds good!" ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

People talk about the foot tappin' quality of playback - and that's as good a phrase as any to use ... digital playback historically has struggled to get this happening - the curse of digital distortion anomalies, which are so hard to eliminate.

 

Which is not the same thing as not being able to eliminate them - how it works is that the SQ snaps into place; one moment it's wrong - and then it's right ... this is when people who have zero interest in audiophile stuff prick up their ears, and say, "Hey, that sounds good!" ...

As any good recording engineer who has lived in both the analog tape and digital eras, and 99% will tell you the distortions from analog are far worse, when it comes to accurately reproducing an event, than digital. 
 

 

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As any good recording engineer who has lived in both the analog tape and digital eras, and 99% will tell you the distortions from analog are far worse, when it comes to accurately reproducing an event, than digital. 
 

 

 

Except, accuracy in the measurement sense is not the same thing as to whether there are artifacts in the sound which are highly irritating, to the brain.

 

A simple, real world example: a loudspeaker may perform brilliantly under instrumentation; but suffer from rub and scrap noises with certain inputs - it's dead in the water, as an acceptable unit.

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Except, accuracy in the measurement sense is not the same thing as to whether there are artifacts in the sound which are highly irritating, to the brain.

 

A simple, real world example: a loudspeaker may perform brilliantly under instrumentation; but suffer from rub and scrap noises with certain inputs - it's dead in the water, as an acceptable unit.

I’m talking about listening only. I don’t know many recording engineers who care about measurements. They are about feel and sound of music. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

10 hours ago, March Audio said:

When I have played this to people elsewhere they also tend to prefer 2, the one they think is more "life like".

 

However 2 is the version that had been compressed, equalised and reverb added.

 

1 has has just been panned and levels changed.

 

Version 2 is the "distorted" and more "produced" version and quite different to what came off the microphone feeds.

 

2 definitely has way too much reverb - this is what killed it for me. It also seems louder (played on my computer speakers, about 30 sec of each). I preferred 1 (choice made before seeing your post). 

 

I had posted a similar comparison here: 

One of the tracks was mastered by Robert Parker, who was known for purposefully adding reverb, to simulate the experience of listening in "live settings". Does not make any sense to me, but I guess some people prefer it.

 

Reading back my blog post now, I see I commented that the Mosaic version sounds more natural, and I used also the term "real". "Realism" is currently debated in another thread, in which I expressed the opinion that "realism" does not matter. I should have added "up to a certain point". In this  case (the Robert Parker track and number 2 in the above test) the added effects (reverb) simply do not sound convincing and are "grotesque", so I see no contradiction here.

 

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m talking about listening only. I don’t know many recording engineers who care about measurements. They are about feel and sound of music. 

 

So, why are there so many audiophiles who literally can't bear the sound of "digital" recordings; who only grudgingly tolerate how it comes across in the real world of their living rooms?

[fas42]

Just now, hopkins said:

 

2 definitely has way too much reverb - this is what killed it for me. It also seems louder (played on my computer speakers). I preferred 1 (choice made before seeing your post). 

 

Which confirms what I was hearing - except, the numbers are reversed ... so, did I get the labelling wrong?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, why are there so many audiophiles who literally can't bear the sound of "digital" recordings; who only grudgingly tolerate how it comes across in the real world of their living rooms?

Thats an answer only a licensed psychiatrist can answer 🤣

[GregWormald]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thats an answer only a licensed psychiatrist can answer 🤣

Or a real scientist.

 

Science goes from observation to speculation (often called theory but not scientifically) to experiment to measurement. And then re-test.

If the observations differ from the measurements, it's the measurements that are wrong or inadequate.

 

Greg (psychotherapist for 45+ years)

[fas42]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thats an answer only a licensed psychiatrist can answer 🤣

 

But seriously, I've heard the unpleasantness of how many systems present very up front recordings - so, a little bit of analogue 'honey' is added, so make it more palatable.

 

A good example: an audio enthusiast, not the local friend, who uses a DEQX unit, heavily modified, to DSP perfect response curves can't stand the sound of digital being fed direct to the DEQX - which is obviously the "more accurate". No, he takes the analogue of the CDP, feeds to the analogue input of the DEQX - it has gone through a whole extra D/A, A/D path ... but he was adamant that it sounded much better this way - actually refused to try it, even to demonstrate to me.