Analog: Still Better?

[JoeWhip]

The old scratchy copy sounds wonderful. Sure. 🤨

[Rexp]

18 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

The old scratchy copy sounds wonderful. Sure. 🤨

Go troll elsewhere 

[kumakuma]

53 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Go troll elsewhere 

 

I think he was responding to what the interviewer said in the video...

[davide256]

On 9/5/2020 at 8:52 PM, GUTB said:

 

Triangle Art Concerto upgraded to a Maestro platter and Triangle Art speed controller. Triangle Art Zeus cartridge on a Reed 2A arm. Custom Hashimoto SUT. Chinese tubed phono, forget the brand right now, it was a cheap clone of some old famous brand.

Triangle Arts purchased at show prices and dealing directly with the manufacturer:  Concerto + platter upgrade $2000, speed controller $2000, Zeus MC $2000. Reed 2A used $2000. Hashimoto SUT from private builder on ebay $1000. Chinese phono approx. $400 + a few hundred more on NOS tubes. Oh, and I broke down and bought a SMARTractor for $600, I was surprised how off my alignments were prior. 

Thanks. It's amazing how many audiophile TT manufacturers still exist. just a testament to how digital has yet to surpass vinyl. Triangle was always one of those rare ones

I heard about but never saw "in the wild".

[Rexp]

Came across this on Tidal, sounds quite analog:

[Steve B]

On 9/7/2020 at 3:15 AM, sandyk said:

This is what I meant about the look of a typical CD.(Fleetwood Mac-Dreams)

Note the roll off well before 22kHz

( Click on my images a few times to get a full screen image)

Is this from an 80s CD mastering? I’d be surprised if a 2000s remastering CD didn’t have more content above 20 K

[jabbr]

20 hours ago, One and a half said:

By transmission of digital signals includes the source interface (USB, Ethernet), tortuous path of various reclocker/fixers, cables and power supplies to drive them all. It's difficult to argue the point where the source has infinite sample rate of an AC voltage over a (relatively short) distance).

It's easy to generalise though, there are exceptions everywhere. 

 

No doubt many people make things very complicated with lots of cables and power supplies and widgets everywhere.

 

There are simple, low powered network devices which accept fiberoptic ethernet in and USB out. These allow sophisticated filters and modulators such as available with HQPlayer, and connect to the widest range of DACs. I have been using this approach since 2015 and it is gaining in popularity. There are DACs such as Lumin that accept fiberoptic in, and entirely avoid transmission line noise.

 

To each their own however I've seen no data that indicates an SACD player has less noise than a high quality USB DAC so these arguments are theoretical. Differences you hear are more likely due to actual differences in the DAC hardware e.g. modulators and filters. 

[JoeWhip]

19 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I think he was responding to what the interviewer said in the video...

Indeed. Did Rexp even watch the video? Then attacks me as a a troll. Really?

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Steve B said:

Is this from an 80s CD mastering? I’d be surprised if a 2000s remastering CD didn’t have more content above 20 K

 What I posted was typical of that era, Yes, they have markedly improved their anti- aliasing filters in more recent years, with Diana Krall-The Girl in the Other Room, for example  getting  close ro 22kHz.

Quote

Aliasing would be a big problem for digital audio, because it is usually not desired for frequencies to change in a signal. ... This component is called an anti-aliasing filter. Conceptually, the anti-aliasing filter blocks frequencies above the Nyquist frequency from being converted. (22.05kHz)

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

. Differences you hear are more likely due to actual differences in the DAC hardware e.g. modulators and filters. 

 No. Recently Gary asked me to check that the cases of my internal SSDs  had a VERY low resistance to the 0 volrs (Earth) of my PCs internal PSU as he had obtained a marked improvement in Soundstage and overall quality by doing so.

I duplicated Gary's results after markedly reducing the mV readings between the internal SSD/HDDs cases and the Earth of the PSU itself as he suggested . 

(The 0 Volts {Earth}  of SSDs/HDD  are internally connected to their cases)

[mav52]

On 9/3/2020 at 11:10 PM, 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 enjoy my LP's and I enjoy my Digital. 

[Calvin & Hobbes]

It's easier to listen to digital, but when I have the time to just listen to music, I seem to choose to listen to records. I can't point to anything specific, but the sound of vinyl feels more organic to me. I say 'feel' as I can't point to anything specific in the sound that would make me think that.

[firedog]

Different strokes for different folks. 

I have the ability, but zero desire, to play analog.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

It's easier to listen to digital, but when I have the time to just listen to music, I seem to choose to listen to records. I can't point to anything specific, but the sound of vinyl feels more organic to me. I say 'feel' as I can't point to anything specific in the sound that would make me think that.

 

"More organic" is another way of saying that distortion that "I can't point to" as being obviously present, is no longer subjectively audible. Digital system were once notorious for injecting this in vast quantities, but have steadily improved over the years to the point where even very low cost units are capable of getting this right - with a little help from a knowledgeable practitioner, 🙃.

 

Vinyl rigs, and digital rigs, will sound equivalent in the level of their 'organicness' - if both are tweaked to the necessary level. The type of tweaking that's essential will differ between the two formats in many areas, but ultimately deliver identical results, as far as listening satisfaction is concerned.

 

 

[EvilTed]

I guess it depends upon what you call "better"?

 

If you are like me and you enjoy the tone from Koetsu cartridges and tube phono stages more than you enjoy removing the preamp and playing digital straight, then yes.

 

In my system, with a good recording that has been spotlessly cleaned it engages at an emotional level that digital does not.

It shouldn't (in theory) but it does.

 

Maybe it's being brought up on analog sound and never liking CDs when they came out?

Others will say it's all the distortion that the tubes and cartridges etc add.

I'm sorry, but it's much more than the some of its parts.

When analog is right it is so much better.

 

Analog

SME 30/2 + SME V (custom static balance only + mono crystal internal cable) + Koetsu Onyx Platinum + Audio Sensibility Statement OCC silver cable.

 

EAR 912 tube phono preamp

Mullard 6922 NOS phono-stage tubes

Amperex 6922 PQ pinched waist line-stage tubes

 

Digital

Lumin X1 + Audio Sensibility Statement OCC Silver DC cable + Roon (Tidal, Qoboz, Spotify Premium).

 

 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I have a modest vinyl source (cost: around 700 euro) and am floored by the sound quality it provides in my system. 

 

If I were to start over in this hobby, I would probably choose to invest in a vinyl collection, to listen in my living room, and just use spotify on my computer to listen to all the rest. 

 

Not all records sound good, obviously, but well recorded acoustic music on good pressings sound spectacular. 

 

However, I have hope that digital will still improve. As some of you may know, I am a big fan of ECDesigns products and trust they are on the right path to unlocking further potential from those damn files. We'll see!

 

The sad thing is that you can spend 10.000 euros or more on a digital system today, and it will not offer the lifelike reproduction of a simple vinyl rig. 

 

Note: 99% of what I listen to is acoustical music (jazz mostly). 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 9/17/2020 at 1:37 AM, fas42 said:

 

"More organic" is another way of saying that distortion that "I can't point to" as being obviously present, is no longer subjectively audible. Digital system were once notorious for injecting this in vast quantities, but have steadily improved over the years to the point where even very low cost units are capable of getting this right - with a little help from a knowledgeable practitioner, 🙃.

 

Vinyl rigs, and digital rigs, will sound equivalent in the level of their 'organicness' - if both are tweaked to the necessary level. The type of tweaking that's essential will differ between the two formats in many areas, but ultimately deliver identical results, as far as listening satisfaction is concerned.

 

 

 

I could not disagree more...

 

Digital systems do not YET offer the same fidelity - regardless of cost. Noise, errors/glitches in DAC conversion, jitter, are well known sources of degradation in digital sound reproduction. 

 

No level of tweaking can correct the issues of digital systems. You can make compromises, but you are fooling yourself in thinking that you can "compensate" for the inherent flaws of a DAC by tweaking everything around it. No level of tweaking will ever correct noise/glitches INHERENT in current digital conversion systems. 

 

The solution may come, but certainly not from all the futile amateurish attempts that you can read about from enthusiastic audiophiles.

 

There are over 700 pages in a "how to massively improve the quality if digital audio" thread. These are all "peripheral" solutions, and do not address the shortcomings of the DACs that are available today, regardless of price. 

 

Sure, a low noise power supply, an optimized seever, an audiophile switch, or any similar gizmo may improve things somewhat, but will not fundamentally correct DAC flaws. 

 

There is still much progress to be made in the digital domain, and this is no secret! Audiophiles know this (witness all the discussions on digital audio on this forum) and most engineers working on this topic know this also and will admit it. 

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, hopkins said:

There is still much progress to be made in the digital domain, and this is no secret! Audiophiles know this (witness all the discussions on digital audio on this forum) and most engineers working on this topic know this also and will admit it. 

And I could not disagree more....

"engineers know ...and will admit"   ????  Which ones? how many? The engineers who prefer digital?

I call this just you making a baseless claim to backup your POV. Base for the claim?

 

As usual, this is a silly discussion. Some people like digital better, and some people like analog better. There is no one better.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

30 minutes ago, firedog said:

And I could not disagree more....

"engineers know ...and will admit"???? I call this just you making a baseless claim to backup your POV. Base for the claim?

As usual, this is a silly discussion. Some people like digital better, and some people like analog better. There is no one better.

 

The base for the claim is that every serious DAC manufacturer will admit that digital sources/digital cables matter when theoretically they should not! And they will also admit that they do not know why! 

 

You can read about this in interviews with a number of engineers from high end brands such as Mola Mola, CH Precision and others. 

 

Do your homework... 

 

P. S. I use both digital and analog. The point is just to be realistic and informed (not delusional) about the limitations.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

I could not disagree more...

 

Digital systems do not YET offer the same fidelity - regardless of cost. Noise, errors/glitches in DAC conversion, jitter, are well known sources of degradation in digital sound reproduction. 

 

They don't because the designers, largely, still don't get it ... they obsess about easily measured parameters, and tend to ignore factors that really matter, with regard to subjective qualities.

 

Quote

 

No level of tweaking can correct the issues of digital systems. You can make compromises, but you are fooling yourself in thinking that you can "compensate" for the inherent flaws of a DAC by tweaking everything around it. No level of tweaking will ever correct noise/glitches INHERENT in current digital conversion systems. 

 

Huhh?!! Tweaking is exactly how to correct sub-par digital playback - the raw parts are fine, but not enough care is taken to completely isolate the workings from the environment ... this is why very expensive DAC setups, built with Swiss precision, say, do so much better.

 

Quote

 

Sure, a low noise power supply, an optimized seever, an audiophile switch, or any similar gizmo may improve things somewhat, but will not fundamentally correct DAC flaws. 

 

There are no inherent DAC flaws! Better than any analogue playback was possible from digital, soon after the start of CDP era - but the special cases were always ignored ... the assumption was that because the specs were so good, that nothing else mattered. Which is never the case, in any field of human endeavour.

 

Quote

 

There is still much progress to be made in the digital domain, and this is no secret! Audiophiles know this (witness all the discussions on digital audio on this forum) and most engineers working on this topic know this also and will admit it. 

 

The progress comes through understanding that attention to detail is everything, in getting the best from digital playback chains. Just slapping together "high performance" parts doesn't automatically create a superb supercar - the latter only occurs when the engineering of the whole is finessed through ongoing refinement - that's how it works in the audio field, too.

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, hopkins said:

P. S. I use both digital and analog. The point is just to be realistic and informed (not delusional) about the limitations.

You appear to be a wee bit the other way as shown by the  choice of these components.

 

Quote

EAR 912 tube phono preamp

Mullard 6922 NOS phono-stage tubes

 They don't come even close to the S/N of a very good Solid State RIAA phono Preamp, and by this I don't mean a  typical  modern I.C. implementation.

As for heaps of valve "goodness" A.K.A. ,  Euphony or warmth as distinct from accuracy . . . . ..

If you want those qualities you could have used a F.E.T based Phono Preamp and achieved an even better S/N as well.

P.S. 

Unfortunately, many of our favourite recordings in Digital were created using an immature technology, compared with an existing mature technology 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The base for the claim is that every serious DAC manufacturer will admit that digital sources/digital cables matter when theoretically they should not! And they will also admit that they do not know why! 

 

 

 

They matter - because digital playback chains are very sensitive to noise. Not in the digital domain of course, but rather in the the digital to analogue conversion area, and subsequent pure analogue circuitry. Just putting things in different boxes, and giving a couple of feet clearance between them, is close to useless if you want to solve these sort of problems - very few people have the right mindset to properly grapple with what needs to be done, it seems. Which is why there is so much floundering, using 'crazy' methods to try and improve things ...

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

39 minutes ago, sandyk said:

You appear to be a wee bit the other way as shown by the  choice of these components.

 

 

Yes, I had not included my analog source in my profile. Just did.

 

In terms of listening, its 50/50, depending on what I want to listen to. That's the thing people tend to forget: there are a lot of albums that are only available on vinyl, and vice versa. 

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Unfortunately, many of our favourite recordings in Digital were made using an immature technology, compared with a mature technology 

 

Turns out that the 'immature' recording technology doesn't matter, ultimately - it just means that the playback side has to be on its best behaviour for these to 'work'. Which takes effort to achieve - sometimes, it's simpler to "blame the recording!" 😜

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

They matter - because digital playback chains are very sensitive to noise. Not in the digital domain of course, but rather in the the digital to analogue conversion area, and subsequent pure analogue circuitry. Just putting things in different boxes, and giving a couple of feet clearance between them, is close to useless if you want to solve these sort of problems - very few people have the right mindset to properly grapple with what needs to be done, it seems. Which is why there is so much floundering, using 'crazy' methods to try and improve things ...

 

Its not a question of mindset. The facts are there - and the people who actually manufacture the equipment you listen to know it and say so!

 

Your method, whatever it is, is not going to tranform a digital system into an analog system - if you think so you need to spend more time listening carefully to a vinyl source. 

 

Digital certainly has many advantages. But I perfectly understand why many people enjoy vinyl as well. 

 

Serious audiophiles should have both. You can then easily remind yourself, when testing new digital gear, what is achieved and remains to be accomplished.