Analog: Still Better?

[fas42]

23 hours ago, Rexp said:

The analoguesness of the vinyl rip is missing, you can hear it on this YT video so try a different recorder:

 

 

 

Channel is a nice find! ... Yes, captures to a very good level the qualities of good audio replay - found another one there, of a different style, 🙂

 

 

[Rexp]

41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Channel is a nice find! ... Yes, captures to a very good level the qualities of good audio replay - found another one there, of a different style, 🙂

 

 

Yeah, guy uses a Tascam DA3000 @24/96, gives you a feel of that wonderful analogue sound, YT doesn't engage like the real thing though sadly. Would be great to get hold of the lossless files. 

[Rexp]

Is it the DAC or the viny rip thats responsible for the poorer digital version.

 

[musicjunkie917]

7 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Is it the DAC or the viny rip thats responsible for the poorer digital version.

 

This is supposed to be a question, right?

 

Well, there is more to it than just DAC or vinyl. There is also the mastering choice. One of the main reasons I gave up on vinyl was that the digital side of my 2 channel setup became just as good and sometimes better than the vinyl side when I went out of my way to find the best digital masterings of a given album. Once I did that, the pain in the butt stuff you have to do with vinyl, not to mention the extra expense, became untenable.

[fas42]

What I'm finding annoying is that the quality changes through the time period that a single version plays ... this is a common problem for higher end rigs that haven't stabilised - there's a moving target, while you listen ... do I like what it sounded like at the start of the playing, or at the end, some minutes later?

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, musicjunkie917 said:

 

This is supposed to be a question, right?

 

Well, there is more to it than just DAC or vinyl. There is also the mastering choice. One of the main reasons I gave up on vinyl was that the digital side of my 2 channel setup became just as good and sometimes better than the vinyl side when I went out of my way to find the best digital masterings of a given album. Once I did that, the pain in the butt stuff you have to do with vinyl, not to mention the extra expense, became untenable.

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.

 

[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?

[Calvin & Hobbes]

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

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?

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 seem to have improved resolution and detail to the sound 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 of how the Pontus DAC sounded 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 apparently adding more 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.

[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.

[Iving]

ime/o "digital harshness" has more to do with electrical noise rather than choice of hardware. Hardware comparisons should be "all things equal" wrt electricity supply.

 

One of the reasons analogue tends to be more satisfying than digital is because digital systems are way more susceptible to electrical noise. "Digital harshness" spoils music. Assuming good amps and really good speakers [and an ordinary urban electricity supply], I'd rather listen to low-end record decks than mid-range digital front ends - even if the latter are more resolving.

 

With modest amp/speakers, digits are fine and musical enjoyment perfectly possible. imo.

[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.

[Iving]

Well I don't agree with or condone any of that!

😇

[Calvin & Hobbes]

21 minutes ago, Iving said:

ime/o "digital harshness" has more to do with electrical noise rather than choice of hardware. Hardware comparisons should be "all things equal" wrt electricity supply.

 

One of the reasons analogue tends to be more satisfying than digital is because digital systems are way more susceptible to electrical noise. "Digital harshness" spoils music. Assuming good amps and really good speakers [and an ordinary urban electricity supply], I'd rather listen to low-end record decks than mid-range digital front ends - even if the latter are more resolving.

 

With modest amp/speakers, digits are fine and musical enjoyment perfectly possible. imo.

100%. That's what I hear when adding components/devices that are intended to reduce RFI/EMI.

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

100%. That's what I hear when adding components/devices that are intended to reduce RFI/EMI.

 

Exactly

[davide256]

The problem with vinyl is that it really sounds compressed and loses bass if your turntable is under $2k in price. Decent arms start at about $500,

same for cartridges. And we aren't even talking about the expense of a goof phono pre. $4k is a pretty serious commitment for  someone starting out

vs digital where you can build a good solution for under $2k. I still like my vinyl solution but the cost of upgrades just gets ridiculously expensive

[Calvin & Hobbes]

17 minutes ago, botrytis said:

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.

 

Explain how Expectation Bias (or, Confirmation Bias which is the proper term for Expectation Bias) plays into this series of my subjective perceptions about the sound quality of power cords on DACs:

 

Testing of Power Cords on the Denafrips Ares II and on the Denafrips Pontus II: (all power cords loaned to me by a friend so zero cost on my part to do this testing. My goal was to get the best sound quality at the least amount I needed to spend. The inclusion of the Tripp-Lite power cord was as a control to test the null hypothesis that any well-designed power cord should all sound the same as any other) 

 

I listened to the power cords first on the Ares II then on the Pontus II when I got it later

 

Order of Preference on the Ares II:

1. Synergistic Research UEF Blue: $499
2. Shunyata Venom V14: $135
3. Tripp-Lite Heavy Duty: $15
4. Audience F3 Forte: $150

Listening notes: I hear a bit of harshness from the Ares and the Synergistic cord does best at tempering that harshness. In addition, the Synergistic cord adds a noticeable degree of transparency versus these other cords. As with the Pontus, the Shunyata cord was 2nd and the Tripp-Lite cord was third. These cords were less transparent and harsher in sound than the Synergistic cord. The combination of the Audience cord and the Ares DAC was unbearably harsh sounding to me so I didn't even try to listen to the Audience cord for long.Note: All cords were broken in by being connected to the DAC in operation for at least 100 hours.I was lucky enough to have the 3 more expensive power cords loaned to me by a friend & I got the $15 Tripp-Lite cord as a benchmark for comparison because I don't believe a more expensive product is necessarily better. 

 

Order of Preference on the Pontus II:

 

1. Shunyata Venom V14: $135

2 (tie). Tripp-Lite Heavy Duty: $15

2 (tie). Synergistic Research UEF Blue: $499

4. Audience F3 Forte: $150

 

Listening notes: The Synergistic Research cord was quietest but seemed to obscure detail. The Shunyata cable was the best at keeping the sound lively and the resolution high. Best value goes to the $15 Tripp-Lite Heavy Duty cord that also has similar sonic characteristics as the Shunyata cord and produces about 85% of the resolution and richness of the Synergistic cord. The biggest disappointment was the Audience cord that seems to make the Pontus sound a bit smeared in resolution of details.

 

[Calvin & Hobbes]

9 minutes ago, davide256 said:

The problem with vinyl is that it really sounds compressed and loses bass if your turntable is under $2k in price. Decent arms start at about $500,

same for cartridges. And we aren't even talking about the expense of a goof phono pre. $4k is a pretty serious commitment for  someone starting out

vs digital where you can build a good solution for under $2k. I still like my vinyl solution but the cost of upgrades just gets ridiculously expensive

Different challenges between digital and analog for sure.

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, davide256 said:

The problem with vinyl is that it really sounds compressed and loses bass if your turntable is under $2k in price. Decent arms start at about $500,

same for cartridges. And we aren't even talking about the expense of a goof phono pre. $4k is a pretty serious commitment for  someone starting out

vs digital where you can build a good solution for under $2k. I still like my vinyl solution but the cost of upgrades just gets ridiculously expensive

 

I don't dispute the truth of your personal experience; however, mine is the reverse.

 

I can enjoy a record played on an old Rega Planar 3 no problem. Rega MM cart. I can hear the elevation an "Exact" brings to a RP3. Prices have gone up but let's say well under a grand. Sure - I prefer a Linn Klimax LP12. But a record can sound great on a Rega. otoh my digital system has cost much. much more than that - let's just say on a hunch about 20k probably - and it can still present "digital harshness" if the electrical supply is less than "Sunday evening".

 

Yes - analogue also sounds better Sunday night. But it doesn't grate Tuesday morning.

 

I'm not against digits. I like my good digital front end for all sorts of reasons - mainly convenience and educational opportunities. And I can edit my Library (pre-serious listening) on cheap desktop actives with no displeasure at all.

[davide256]

2 hours ago, Iving said:

 

I don't dispute the truth of your personal experience; however, mine is the reverse.

 

I can enjoy a record played on an old Rega Planar 3 no problem. Rega MM cart. I can hear the elevation an "Exact" brings to a RP3. Prices have gone up but let's say well under a grand. Sure - I prefer a Linn Klimax LP12. But a record can sound great on a Rega. otoh my digital system has cost much. much more than that - let's just say on a hunch about 20k probably - and it can still present "digital harshness" if the electrical supply is less than "Sunday evening".

 

Yes - analogue also sounds better Sunday night. But it doesn't grate Tuesday morning.

 

I'm not against digits. I like my good digital front end for all sorts of reasons - mainly convenience and educational opportunities. And I can edit my Library (pre-serious listening) on cheap desktop actives with no displeasure at all.

I had the luxury of a side by side comparison around 1985 between Rega Planar and LP 12, both with linn Basik tonearm and Nagaoka cartridge into Linn Kann speakers. The dynamic range for the Linn was so much better, groove noise virtually inaudible. But to get there requires a competent Linn setup person, otherwise much is lost. Later competitors like VPI are a better bet for set and forget

[AudioDoctor]

47 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I had the luxury of a side by side comparison around 1985 between Rega Planar and LP 12, both with linn Basik tonearm and Nagaoka cartridge into Linn Kann speakers. The dynamic range for the Linn was so much better, groove noise virtually inaudible. But to get there requires a competent Linn setup person, otherwise much is lost. Later competitors like VPI are a better bet for set and forget

 

Turntable set up is nearly a black art in my opinion.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Iving said:

 

One of the reasons analogue tends to be more satisfying than digital is because digital systems are way more susceptible to electrical noise. "Digital harshness" spoils music. Assuming good amps and really good speakers [and an ordinary urban electricity supply], I'd rather listen to low-end record decks than mid-range digital front ends - even if the latter are more resolving.

 

 

Yes. Unfortunately the noise originates in many areas, which is why there is the craziness of the power cord mattering. And, until the very last source of significant noise is tamed then there is every chance, in fact it can almost be guaranteed, that a digital playback chain will be disturbing, or irritating, or boring to listen to, for a large number of recordings.

 

Satisfying digital is magical stuff. But we are still some way from companies producing components which are intrinsically not susceptible to the noise factors - until that time, DIY and tweaking are the best value for money solutions for extracting the true potential of playback from digital source.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes. Unfortunately the noise originates in many areas, which is why there is the craziness of the power cord mattering. And, until the very last source of significant noise is tamed then there is every chance, in fact it can almost be guaranteed, that a digital playback chain will be disturbing, or irritating, or boring to listen to, for a large number of recordings.

 

Satisfying digital is magical stuff. But we are still some way from companies producing components which are intrinsically not susceptible to the noise factors - until that time, DIY and tweaking are the best value for money solutions for extracting the true potential of playback from digital source.

All I can say is that I have an anecodte of listening to a really good copy of ABBA, then I found it to be a rip.  No matter what, the noise IS worse than my equivalent digital copies, even though ripped at high res.

 

On the other hand, many original recordings from the 60's and 70's had hiss 'added' in the 1980s by the 'digital sound' processing.   I can get rid of the hiss very nicely, then sounds more simlar to the original releases.  Frustratingly, rips of such ancient material is seldom found.   Mostly, all we have now is the current mediocracy 🙂of the music distributors.

 

The same distortions (stereo image wobbling around, twisted sibilance and cymbals impact where the HF peak is moved to the incorrect temporal position.)   This is all 'distortion', ubiquitious and  is manifest on both vinyl and digital copies nowadays.

 

If you want the 'good stuff', most of it is on vinyl from before the 1980s before the 'digital sound' was added to CDs, and a few years later to vinyl itself.

 

For evidence, listen to the hiss on Carpenters recordings or some of the ABBA stuff -- the hiss is MUCH worse than tape from the late 1960s -- it is just that our standards are low, and EXPECT the hiss.  The same thing that produces hiss also adds dynamics modulation distortion to the rest of the recording.

 

So, from the standpoint of damaged mastering, nowadays vinyl and digital are similar.

My own experience is that pristine vinyl isn't too different from digital, but has a bit more distorition, surface noise and sometimes a bit of rumble.   I am not accomodated to vinyl, so I hear the distortions pretty rapidly.  Also, if my headphones didn't go almost all the way down to DC, I probably wouldn't hear the rumble.   Many headphones and speakers pretty much rolloff around 40-50Hz, but if your speakers do respond very low, and the AMP/Preamp is transparent, you can see the speaker cones wobble in and out a little.

 

 

[fas42]

The electrical noise that's insidious, John, doesn't result in any sort of audible hiss, IME - what it does, when present, is suck the life and vitality out of the presentation of the music; what you get is a somewhat dead, grey version of what say an LP rendering would be like ... sound familiar, to anyone, ?

 

What's amusing is that I have just experienced this, only 10 minutes ago: current rig lost the DIY isolation transformer, from internal shorting most likely; part of that tweak is still working - and I'm using that. Which seemed to be doing most of the lifting - yet, just before I wasn't happy, and as an experiment unplugged a not used cord to a lamp, in that circuit ... ah, hah!! That was the villain - plugging and unplugging it clearly demonstrated that the length of cable was acting as an antenna, introducing enough noise on that circuit to do damage to the SQ. What this means, is that the now defunct transformers are needed; or, some other alternative that provides the necessary filtering.

 

The bit of noise that you don't realise is there, can make a night and day difference to the listening; this is the trap in digital reproduction, not getting on top of the causes.

[Rexp]

54 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The electrical noise that's insidious, John, doesn't result in any sort of audible hiss, IME - what it does, when present, is suck the life and vitality out of the presentation of the music; what you get is a somewhat dead, grey version of what say an LP rendering would be like ... sound familiar, to anyone, ?

 

What's amusing is that I have just experienced this, only 10 minutes ago: current rig lost the DIY isolation transformer, from internal shorting most likely; part of that tweak is still working - and I'm using that. Which seemed to be doing most of the lifting - yet, just before I wasn't happy, and as an experiment unplugged a not used cord to a lamp, in that circuit ... ah, hah!! That was the villain - plugging and unplugging it clearly demonstrated that the length of cable was acting as an antenna, introducing enough noise on that circuit to do damage to the SQ. What this means, is that the now defunct transformers are needed; or, some other alternative that provides the necessary filtering.

 

The bit of noise that you don't realise is there, can make a night and day difference to the listening; this is the trap in digital reproduction, not getting on top of the causes.

Enjoy your turd polishing.

[Rexp]

12 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

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?

The Chord Dave is 12K...plus the server used, probably 20K+ total.