Analog: Still Better?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[fas42]

Just now, 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? 

 

The concept would be, that the analogue handling of the signal after the initial conversion would add some, "nice", distortion to the waveform - which would 'balance' the digital "nasties".

 

I don't subscribe to this, of course - true accuracy will always win out, in the end .

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Probably - here is a somewhat similar point of view on the topic by someone who seems to have a large collection of both CD and vinyl: https://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/for-audiophiles/cd-or-vinyl/. 

To summarize - digital caught up, but with the recent popularity of vinyl there may be more "audiophile" pressings where extra attention has been placed on the quality of the remastering/pressing, and that could make a difference again in some cases ?

 

You wouldn't read about it - I just had morning tea; and a TV ad came up, "special vinyl edition" of a celebrated indigenous performer's recordings, now on exclusive release! ... was worth the money to run such a promotion; the call is there for it.

 

Sorry, digital still has some way to go, to overcome the sense that normal playback doesn't cut it ...

[fas42]

Pretty easy  ... the CD version is miles in front - this is the one that presents a much greater sense of being where the microphones were; the acoustic around the trumpet is so much better defined. And when the full band comes in, on the LP, the vinyl distortion is just too obvious.

[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, 🙂

 

 

[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?

[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.

[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.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Enjoy your turd polishing.

 

Which is an example of why the audio industry is such a mess ... there's a deep seated need to believe that only expensive components can produce quality sound; whereas the truth is, especially these days, that very reasonably priced core circuitry and components are able to do this. Typically, a few weaknesses stop the latter performing as well as they can; and similar sorts of weaknesses also guarantee that most ultra expensive setups sound awful, really awful, when the heat is on .

 

Audio shops do nothing to dispel this myth. The last time I visited one of the two high end stores in Sydney there wasn't a single setup I heard there that wasn't in the awful category - so, what hope has the ordinary consumer got, when he wants to explore what's possible ...

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Confused said:

You must be more observant than I am, I did not notice this. Can you give some specific examples with times in the clip that explain what you've noticed?

 

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.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Confused said:

The last time I visited a "high end" store in the UK, they had two systems running in separate demo rooms, and they both sounded good.

 

Maybe a difference between your ears and mine? Or maybe a difference between the stores, kit on offer, set-up or something else? How will we ever solve this conundrum?

 

Depends upon what one is expecting, and definition of "good" - what I heard was something equivalent, quality wise, to what one hears when you visit somebody who has an everyday stereo, bought at some electrical store with no special effort made to choose the setup; but with an extra level of unpleasantness to the sound. And the more expensive it was, the worse was the unpleasantness.

 

There was nothing in the SQ that said, this is something special, that I'm inspired to want to buy - visually, yes, interesting or impressive; in the sound stakes, a fail ...

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, Confused said:

You can hear the increase in tracking distortion over about one and a half minutes of playback? I must admit that I cannot, perhaps a blessing for me? 

 

Different things disturb different people ... there was a period several years ago when the audio friend up the road was doing a lot of tweaking of his LP setup; and all sorts of things were tried. It was then I became very aware of how the SQ altered as the needle traversed the record, building up to a sweet spot as one of the points of optimum alignment was reached, to then steadily lose that peak as the cartridge moved further inward - depending upon the overall status of reproduction this can really stand out; which seems to be the likely cause here.

[fas42]

13 hours 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.

 

Thanks for the offer! 👍 ... But I suspect we won't take it up, .

 

Mainly, as I implied in that post, because if the overall standard of the vinyl playback is high enough, then tracking distortion is discarded by the listening brain. N. has had his LPs play back since that time to a standard where I couldn't fault it - subjectively, the experience was equivalent to how listeners have reacted to some of the latest DACs, in the threads I've pointed to.

 

13 hours ago, Confused said:

 

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.

 

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.

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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

 

Because many people are not willing to try and understand what the best method for achieving this is ... there is, most obviously, the general belief in the magic of money, and brands, for getting there - IME, this has almost nothing to do with achieving such; if it were otherwise, I should be able to walk into the showrooms of the best room of a high end dealer, and be blown away by the magnificence of the sound ... normally, I think to myself, "How on earth can anyone think this is good quality ... ?"

 

The industry is not in control. By a long shot. Otherwise, if you went to an audio show you would be impressed, very impressed, by what all the flash rigs were doing ... and we are nowhere near that, yet.

 

The consumer is really the one in control - the ones who are aware of what can be achieved pull together the bits and pieces with the greatest potential, and then by careful tweaking extract the SQ which is possible.

 

I only differ in that I've been doing it longer than most - because I discovered it so much earlier - and go with the value for money approach, because that gives me plenty of options ... I can almost destroy something in the experimenting; because it doesn't matter if I do, .

[fas42]

How you react to me depends on whether you want to play equipment games; or whether you want to extract maximum satisfaction from any recording you have at hand - the former will get it very little useful from me, I do agree ...

 

An audio myth that does need squashing is that a recording is bad(!!), when it sounds bad(!!!) on my, so very close to my heart and oh so very special equipment ... people who can let this one go have a far greater chance of reaching, gasp!!, Nirvana ...

[fas42]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Yes, digital is indeed highly susceptible to noise, and (practically) no DAC manufacturer has solved this issue. Even with very high end DACs (with indecent prices) you still see users investing in high end sources, and finding variability in sources/DAC inputs.

 

Okay, this is the meat: DACs have always had the potential to produce top notch SQ; the standard measurements put out, right in the earliest days make this quite clear. But, and it's a very big but, there has been a blindness to the need to maintain very high levels of noise hygiene for the whole system for that to actually happen; and that still remains, to this day. This is why there has always been the odd chap around the place, who magically extracted "marvellous sound", and the people who heard it scratched their heads, wondering what his "secret sauce" was, .

 

Umm, there has never been a mystery! Digital reproduction just needs scrupulous attention to detail, to make it "sound right" - it's never been anything else than that, since the beginning ...

 

People who think I have fantasies just want to believe in the story of how most stuff in the world evolves: you have to throw lots of technology, and money, at getting something to work better ... well, in audio, this is not actually how it works; I can visit some ultra expensive rig anytime, and cringe at what I hear - fundamental mistakes are still being made, and the SQ suffers ...

 

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The question then becomes: is there an optimal digital configuration (a combination of source and DAC) that offers low noise and can be comparable to the best analog rigs? Who is to say what is a "low noise" digital source? We don't know, do we? 

 

Much progress can be made if one doesn't insist that "it's the DAC!!", or, "it's the speakers!!!" that are the culprit - It's The System, Stupid, should be the thought that's uppermost.

 

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Then of course there is the much more pessimistic consideration that many recordings that have been made using digital processes (starting in the early 80s?) were ruined. 

 

Nope. A setup working at a high enough quality level makes all those bad thoughts go away - there are some staggeringly impressive recordings out there, amazing to listen to, which have had every digital trick in the book thrown at them ... a sub-par rig will make a mess of them, allowing the owner to immediately add the tag, Bad Recording!

[fas42]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

Here is  a good point of view on this issue: http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Anlg

 

In that he says,

 

Quote

Digital's one major problem is that is has a very high "sound-floor"*, at least compared to high-quality analog.

 

That's exactly right ... but it's not the fault of digital technology, per se - it occurs because enough of the implementation of the system is sloppy - and all the critical data that the ear relies upon is lost. The solution, as it has always been, is to eradicate that sloppiness, by whatever means - and then the SQ snaps into shape ... every time .

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, Dynobot said:

A Topping dac has 124dB SNR 0.0004% THD.

 

What analog piece of gear has a better noise floor?

 

Errrrrr 'sound floor'

 

Oh and lets not forget the most important factor.....the threshold of human hearing....make that a middle aged male hearing....BTW your hearing only gets worse with age, your wallets might get bigger but hearing shrinks.

 

😁

 

Yes, we're so certain that standard measurements tell us everything, aren't we?

 

Read people's impressions of digital replay, when the presentation becomes fully holographic, and the sound experience is truly immersive ... that's when the sound floor is true to the recording. This occurs relatively rarely, which is a sad indictment of the industry - but that doesn't mean an individual can't do something to make things better ...

[fas42]

What made people think it was so bad? Well, because when they listened to it, it did! Even at the last hifi show I went to, only about half a dozen rigs "made music", the rest were instantly dismissable as having too many problems to take seriously ... . The only bright note, if you can call it such, was that the few analogue setups there were even more mediocre - headshaking stuff, really.