Analog vs. digital

let's get real.

For reference, I have a highly resolving system by almost any standard, but am also a design engineering working (as a side gig, and creative outlet) int he field both with branded and contract designs.

Digital  systems, so long as they have no major flaws, will have far more details than ANY analog system.   IN THEORY.  96 dB signal to noise means the smallest signal can be 1/60,000th the size of the loudest.  That defines the level of detail before noise overwhelms it.  Even in a great turntable/vinyl,the noise floor will be 70 dB at best, which is ~ 1/3,000th. No i did not miss a zero or decimal point.

Before you start throwing stones at the egghead engineer who doesn't listen, i know full well and realize that there are lots of things in analog that sound better if and only if the system is good enough.  But make no mistake - you are heading mostly the failings of the digital mastering process, or of some cheap-ass DAC, or, very often you are sadly hearing the results of a recording deliberately made bright and shrill to overcome heading loss (Pete Towshend was famous for this) or the failings of tape and other elements in the recording and playback chain - AM radios int he early days, boom boxes int eh 60s.  There are some fascinating your tube videos with recording engineers about artists over-ruling good engineering advice for more ""pop" and "presence".

Then there are the euphonic vs dissonant distortions. Many analog distortions are hamonically related and sound warm.  Case #1: tubes. Most digital failings are harmonically unrelated (read up your music theory folks) and sound like crap.

So we have tow sets of sonic issues here that can easily become confused as wel listen.  Is that material the record misses?  Or a distortion? Or valid material from a really messed up recording from some old hearing-impaired rocker? or something else.

I suggest hearing digital from a great, old analog recording, well mastered (interestingly, most will be red book, not HD) such as the old verve, blue note or Mercury stuff. Play it on a very good DAC, with a well isolated USB source.  That will lack analog euphinics but will be far more detailed, tighter bass, blah, blah. I didn't say you will always LIKE it better. My opinion: many DACs are amusical as are many systems.  I have a filter designed for my "it may hit the market some day" next gen product with a filter to fight this that i plan to call the "de-nastifier" :-)

Happy holiday to those here in the USA.

I have both excellent sacd player and transport dac combo, when I play sacd disc , I felt why did even invest good amount of money on analog? But when I played my analog set up, that’s when I feel there is a good reason why I like analog. I both like the format, but if have time to seat , I listen to my vynil.

Vinyl CAN sound superior to anything digital but you'll have to spend a lot more to get to that level.  Then, a 180 gm record is about 3 or 4 times the price of one month of Qobuz.  

These type of general questions are never completely answered.  So much comes down to the phono stage and cartridge.  Any component can be altered to sound how you prefer it for your ears.  Resistors, capacitors, chokes, etc.

It feel it depends on the source material. I have vinyl that will make the hair stand up on your neck. I also have digital files that will do the same. I also have both digital and vinyl that sound like crap! When you get your system tuned the way you like, it’s really about the source material. 

Vinyl vs. CD on my system is a toss up depending on record. Slightly different presentation, both fully satisfying. Streaming a grade below because I do it from android cell phone via wifi on tidal hifi due to lack of computer in house of stereo system. However, still plenty satisfying and a fantastic way to find out what I want to buy on CD or vinyl without throwing money away on crappy records! To think that only 3 months ago I thought I would never stream... I am now certain that a direct ethernet connection to a high tech router would bring it right up to the level of vinyl and CD.  BTW the bluesound node N130 was the catalyst for me vs. the zen which I quickly returned. 

Digital.

100% for me.

You need to set up you analog rig properly

At 16 bits, the 'etching' you hear is distortion caused by the limitations of 16-bit digital. At 24-bits, it is actual detail that even the best analog has a hard time duplicating. I recently picked up a pristine copy of Jesse Winchester's 'Let The Rough Side Drag'. It is everything that analog promises, sweet, spacious and invting. My CD copy, by comparison is hard and flat, not really enjoyable sonically. For both, the performances and the songs are amazing. I would love to hear a 24-bit remaster from the original master tapes, but I'm not holding my breath. And that's the problem. For much of the catalog from the mid-60s to mid-80s, 24-bit remasters simply aren't available for all the usual reasons - financial, logistical, and technical. So, we're left with only the analog pressings or first generation digital, most of which simply aren't very well done. Newer originals, mostly 24-bit digital, suffer far less and when down-converted to 16-bit CD and can sound quite detailed, but without a proper analog master for comparison, who's to say which might be better. Kind of hard to find in any event. 

The more money you invest (the more research you do) the better system you get. It's not really important if it's analog or digital.......

My experience is that once you cross a certain threshold, analog sounds better.

My digital is Emm, my analog is VPI.  I haven’t had much need to upgrade my digital.  But my analog is probably twice as expensive as my digital.  Both sound great but the analog has a more realistic sound.  It’s more “defined” as well.

I tried a regular entry level turntable in my exact system, sounded dull and vague and missing bass notes by comparison.  I don’t believe analog is baseline better than digital.

it’s easier to get your digital to sound great rather than analog.  IMO.

Everything comes down to$$,  the sweet spot in digital $4-6 k 

turntables  similar ,  T get a lot better maybe 3-4x the price in my experiences 

in the many setups I have heard.

I have six times more money on the analog side and on my system the analog is more musical with more presence. DSD stored locally is wonderful, but the same material on a good pressing is better..but that assumes that I have the funds to buy the album, it is available and is a good pressing. 

+2, @ghdprentice

If both recordings source from the same master, your components can be the differentiator in maximizing your joy.

@jmphotography

If you’re up for it, try a nice tube DAC to bridge the gap between digital and analog systems. While Qutest is nice, I believe you can do much better under $2K. Couple of suggestions, check out DAC’s from MHDT Orchid and Border Patrol.

As usual a +1 @ghdprentice I came back to vinyl about 20 yrs ago and was surprised how close a <$1K TT and <$1K phono preamp came to my digital and often bested it. I've moved up quite a bit since then and actually my vinyl rig is much more costly than my Theta Miles CDP. But I'm often surprised how close the Miles comes to the vinyl with certain recordings. However the Miles is tweaked a bit also which brought it up quite a bit from pure stock.

That said, the Miles is also known as THE R&R CDP due to its abundance of bass punch which is necessary for Classic rock  to sound good. This is what I listen to mostly and I get that punch with analog but not with all digital. The bass is often there but not the punch or driving force which is what a rhythm section is supposed to add for R&R. i'm not sure that is the goal in female vocals or jazz. So good clean digital without the glare may be the better for the typical audiophile music. But IME It took several digital players to get the sound I was looking for. Now the Miles is getting old and I'm trying to stream. As for Dacs, I think my safest bet is probably the Yggdrasil since it is supposedly the Theta Gen 5a on steroids. 

J photography,

Yes, I’m finding the same thing with an Analogue Productions LP vs. the same company’s SACD of Prokofiev’s “Lt. Kije.”

My digital consist of an Innuos Zenith mkIII and Chord Qutest connected by Shunyata Alpha USB. Streaming Qobuz and a lot of purchased hi res files, some DSD and ripped CD’s that were ripped by the Zenith. So about $7500 investment.

My analog is a VPI Prime 21 with Hana ML and Manley Chinook SE II so ~$9000.

If I compare lets say Nora Jones - Come away with me, Analogue Productions pressing to the DSD version of that same album. To me the digital is dynamic, precise and clean. However, compared to my analog setup, the bass is further extended, like bass notes on "turn me on" is just amazing on vinyl, further extended and reaching far into the room. But the layers and layers of added depth to the vinyl are just amazing and makes the digital sound flat. Her voice is just so much more "in the room" on vinyl. So for "my taste" I prefer vinyl.

Mostly depends on your investment preference, all things equal tape and lp's  would still have the edge.

It seems with the best audiophile records there is much less of a difference between analog and digital.  They’re almost identical.  But that’s not true with the majority of records on my system.

It is completely dependent on your components. While in the past analog provided a definite advantage that could not be duplicated… so there was an “analog” and “digital” sound, and resolution wise analog just blew away digital.

All that is different now. Depending on you price range and components ala,go and digital can sound exactly the same of one can exceed the other.

I currently own the best system I have ever owned. I carefully crafted it in light of my decades of experience pursuing the high end. Both the analog and digital ends have exactly the same sound quality (see my UserID). This is by having the same brand and level of Audio Research amp, preamp, Phonostage, and DAC. Also, I carefully chose my cartridge to reflect my preferences as far as sound quality.

Both the analog and digital have very very similar levels of detail. The recording would determine if one sounded better than the other. Recently I upgraded the tone area and sub chassis on my turntable. This allowed the turntable to pull ahead on many recordings. But if I am not paying attention I can perk up and be amazed at the level of detail, thinking it is the turntable, and find it is streaming. This allows continued happy surprises from both sides.

If I was downing this again… this would be my goal… well, if I was starting now I would skip analog. Although at inexpensive levels… say systems <$10K, analog is a real bargain. And if you have absolutely no budget restraints in system >$250 K you need to spend quite a bit more on digital to equal the performance of analog. But in between these you can choose the same performance or adjust one better than the other.

I’ve recently upgraded both my digital and analog front ends to what I’d consider my “end game” status. The analog rig (excluding ‘accessories’ like phono stage, cover, RCM, etc) is about 2-2.5x the digital $ to achieve comparable SQ level.

I am not convinced that certain elements such as macro dynamics or detail retrieval are equivalent, but at this level I do enjoy the analog side more. Just more ‘musical’ to my ears.

Speakers are next up, so perhaps will change.

I cannot answered definitively ...it is only my opinion for sure...

But on "relatively ordinary" analog system at relatively low cost, with low embeddings controls in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical working dimensions, the relatively low cost digital system in the same embeddings conditions  will sound often more detailed or more "cut up" which is not a pure positive fact, ( timbre is not a simple matter) but this digital system if the dac is well chosen can be made with improved  embeddings controls very organic sounding tubelike more and will beat the relatively low cost analog system...

It takes high value analog system to beat digital actual one in the same embeddings conditions.... Too much money to contemplate...( i trust Mike deLavigne impressions about that )

But anyway these discussions analog/digital are way less important than the three embeddings control but this seems impossible to be understood by many ... 😁😊

I tested this difference between analog/digital sound with one of my friend analog and digital  system.... Then i could imagine the huge difference, way over this difference between some analog/digital separate systems, made by the three embeddings control method...

But a method is not an easy upgrade solution ...And somebody not owning a good acoustic room and no vibrations control, and no house electrical control cannot imagine the difference at all...He then contemplate upgrade between analog or digital to be a very important upgrading solution ...It will be a costly one in most case...

It was more difficult to figure out embeddings controls , not in money in my case, but with my time...But the end results is so huge than upgrading make me afrais and smile at the same time...

Audiophile experience is not an engineering choices dependant fact mostly nowadays, with all these equivalent good design available, it is mostly acoustic and psycho-acoustic  knowledge ( vibrations controls and electrical controls are almost  as much as important )...