Analog: Still Better?

[Rexp]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The CD version has qualities in the mastering, which can create disturbing listening - this occurs because the signature distortion of the replay is 'in conflict' with those of the mastering - "they rub each other the wrong way". My rig two rounds ago, based on a Philips HT box, was highly marginal with this CD - it has to be on its best behaviour to not show issues when playing the tracks from this album.

 

By comparison, the Edifiers were a walk in the park ... why? Well, the current setup has a different collection of weaknesses, which just happen to balance with the characteristics of that recording - no unpleasantness, at all. ... Call it "synergy", if you like, 🙂.

 

The end goal is to have zero signature of the reproduction chain - it's evenhanded with everything; and thereby every recording 'works' ...

No, the distortion is baked into the recording, you just can't hear lt. 

[Rexp]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

Analogy: get a beautiful girl, and shine a powerful light on her face; and move in really, really close to her skin - yuck !!! Looks awful! - where's the beauty gone, now?

You didn't have this girl tied up at the time did you? 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I suspect most opining about vinyl being better than CD have not experienced a good CD player....

Which CD player would you suggest? The last one I tried was an Audio Research CD9. The MSB sounded good at a show but very expensive. 

[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. 

[Rexp]

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

 

[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

 

[Rexp]

8 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.

Are you 100% sure its not the recording? 

[Rexp]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

The recording chain does affect the SQ - but a decently competent playback chain resolves those issues. My current active speakers even at this stage of tweaking have no issues with massed strings, even at realistic levels - a first goal is to get rid of obvious ugliness; and further refinement is always possible.

No it doesn't

[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. 

[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? 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, March Audio said:

Frank don't you see the contradiction in this?

 

If digital was fundamentally bad how can feeding an analogue signal into an additional round of A to D and D to A make everything OK? 

 

BTW we can do an interesting experiment on this if you want.  I can send a track multiple times through a D to A and A to D process and see if you can tell the difference with the original.

 

If digital is causing problems they should become quite evident after multiple passes.

Frank didn't say digital is fundamentaly bad, did he? I would say most but not all commercial digital releases are bad. 

[Rexp]

9 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Well the context was his friend had to put the audio into the analogue input because digital input sounded bad.  This is rather confounding as the analogue input still goes through another AD DA process.

 

The context of the thread is about analogue being allegedly better.

 

Well the quality of recordings, mastering etc is indeed very variable.  However my question to you is does this actually have anything to do with digital recording and playback?

 

We go back to the point I made initially.  As you have never heard the the original master recording, be it analogue or digital, how do you know what it should sound like?

 

 

1. As I've said, digital is not inherently bad. 

 

2. You don't know what it should sound like unless you recorded it. 

[Rexp]

13 hours ago, hopkins said:

The example does illustrate the difficulty in comparing different releases. 

 

Keep in mind that the recording "equipment" used here is really basic (the Tascam costs < 100$).

 

Concerning the bandwidth, I'll record the CD version with my Tascam recorder. This should be interesting, to me at least, to see if the spectrum looks better.

 

@John Dyson your file does not fix the bandwidth issue, but the dynamic range may be wider? It sounds different (quick listen on my PC, not my speakers). 

 

 

 

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

 

 

[Rexp]

38 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

The rig used in that rip is 100x better than mine !

 

I'll work on it with the same recorder, tweaking the settings (and need to get proper Rca-mini jack cables - mine are not shielded and pick up a lot of noise, had to lower the gain too much). Hopefully I can improve things. 

 

 

Yeah it might not be the recorder, certainly shouldn't be so rolled off. 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

[Rexp]

6 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.

All true, another potential problem with digital as demonstrated recently in the ECD DAC thread is sometimes there is a mismatch between DAC and amp that can ruin the SQ.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

I am a little puzzled by this post. Firstly, which version did you prefer? (I am not sure which was vinyl and which digital?) Secondly, what makes you think this was a vinyl rip rather than just a normal digital music file? 

 

Not wishing to "sit on the fence" here, with a quick listen on headphones, I think I preferred the second version.

 

The youtuber revealed in a later post that the first clip was a vinyl rip and the second was the same vinyl playing on the turntable. 

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Now that we know both versions are sourced from vinyl, it makes more sense - tracking distortion steadily increases through the piece, and this is especially clear in the second capture, with direct LP source; a grunginess, with peak sounds, becomes more apparent, and annoying.

Yes, I think those with less than golden ears will prefer the first version.

[Rexp]

38 minutes ago, Confused said:

I have a Linear tracking Technics SL-7 stuck on a shelf upstairs. I really should dig it out one day and see if it still works. I have never actually used it, my brother dumped it at my house for "safe keeping" when he left the country, the trouble is that he never came back. Might be fun trying head to head with my more modern but more conventional Pro-Ject.

 

You and N can borrow the SL-7 if you want, though shipping might be pricy.

 

I fully agree that different things disturb different people. It is tonal things that get to me, lack of bass, bloated bass, too much or too little in the presence range or treble, this kind of thing. You and I have debated this kind of stuff in the past, one thing I know for sure is that we have very different views on the topic, which is very likely resultant from the "different things disturb different people" effect. In fact, I suspect that the "different things disturb different people" effect might be behind a number of lively forum debates, where in fact some people are quite simply experiencing things differently to each other.

I think its more likely that some don't hear the distortion in certain playback and some do.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Yep, that's a lot of it. What I'm after is the sense of "rightness" - that is, no matter the technical standard of the recording, the genre of music, the style of the piece - they all just sound, well, right. Nothing in what I hear disturbs me; the music itself is conveying its message, fully - this means, I can listen to some bizarre composition, that I have never heard before, and its integrity as a production by musicians passionate about their craft comes through.

Not sure why you keep repeating this (sales pitch?), everyone wants this.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Perhaps you should consider adding Frank to your ignore list like I did.

 

It's greatly increased my enjoyment of this site as now only see his posts when someone like you quotes him.

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