Analog vs. digital

@vonhelmholtz 

+1

Yes, this is that time when depending on exactly what you get can determine whether analog or digital sounds better. A great time to rejoice as for so long digital just couldn’t touch analog at any cost level.

I previously reported vinyl>>digital, but I just got a Holo May DAC DTE , AQ Earth balanced interconnects & Synology DS1522+ with fast SSD cache, fiber optic ethernet feeding my streamer.  I've been streaming ripped CDs and purchased downloads. The result is amazingly musical, detailed and great soundstage. I’m shocked, but this sounds better than my analog..

@blisshifi I use HDR all the time in nature photography. Almost always the result is positive with a much more natural look. Realistically with 13-14 stops on modern digital simple tone mapping is already enough. When you use HDR to naturally extend dynamic range you provide a more natural image which the brain interprets as natural. Natural shadow detail does not fatigue the brain. When people use unnatural HDR for artistic effect, that is fatiguing. 

On TVs in store, that's not HDR, that is high contrast and saturation at artificial levels. HDR in TVs is good. Enhanced shadow detail.

@coltrane1 

😄… yes.

As my cartridge improves the gap is becoming narrower and narrower, but, your right, I probably need a higher level of analog investment to to achieve parity.
 Fortunately,I can achieve a great deal of musical satisfaction with analog

It takes a while to evaluate all your components. I would say your values favor digital. The word etched is something I think of in systems focused on details at all costs. While analog can give incredible detail… this is at much higher levels of investment. Typically at your level of investment analog will win on naturalness… musicality… more so than details. Given your tastes, perhaps you would have to go for a much higher level of investment in analog. But, probably not worth it given what you value. My analog end is wonderfully detailed and musical… more detailed than my digital end. However, both digital and analog ends on my system are ~$45K. 

In an attempt to improve my analog side, I bought a new phono preamp and moving coil cartridge. After break-in the sound improved dramatically. It didn’t, as I expected however, surpass the SQ of my digital side. The best I can say is that on most recordings of the same material, the sound was about equal. The digital has the advantage of being sonically more consistent. Records varied much more in quality, from downright putrid to exceeding anything digital.

But, in general, I have to say in my experience, digital was more of the go-to format. 
YMMV

There are two ways to get improvement.

First would be to get more of the better sound. Say upgrading cables over the white and red variety.

Second would be removing the bad, irritating sounds. Like those little speakers  that boost up the bass with the annoying thump. thump to give the illusion of more bass.

So even if a system does not sound high-end (lots of "good sound") it still can be enjoyable because it doesn't have the "bad sound" to annoy you. Some hi-end you just hear too much bad with the good.

Could one reason that analog sounds better because although it may lack in "if you want to define detail as good sound" it also lacks in "bad sound"?

@lldd I have had this same conversation multiple times, love it. Just in the same way where high dynamic range in photography can sometimes enhance the initial impression but does not replicate reality in the most natural way possible. Another example is going to Best Buy to see most of the TVs fighting for attention with their HDR settings. Sometimes they get you to buy the TV but then you realize once you set it up at home, HDR is just so fatiguing. Our eyes are meant to focus on only a few things at a time, and our vision adjusts its depth of field naturally. Looking at HDR imagery for too long presents too much information that just ends up tiring us out.

It's interesting that you could take this entire thread, replace vinyl and cds with film and sensors, and post it to any similar photography thread and have it map nearly seamlessly.  Technology and human passions included.

Thought I’d share this as it was fitting for this thread, but there’s also likely already another thread dedicated to this video about all MFSL releases since 2015 being digitally mastered…

Haven’t used my turn table i years. I just want to hear music and not have fiddle with records. It’s not that important that the music can sound a little better is I can listen and relax. It’s all about the music and not the front to back depth or can I hear music in the noise. 

That is quite the imagination @monacousticusa 

Analog and digital are just sources the more sources in my mind the more music you have access to. I still keep my CDs because most sound better than high-rez downloads and many are not on music services. I keep my LPs because I bought them they are fun musical and again many sound better than my digital options and are unavailable on streaming.

Personally the system set up really differs the argument here. 

Digital sources can be many things, just from my personal experience, 

CD vs Vinyl => sub 5,000 USD vinyl set up couldn't beat CD system.

Streamer vs Vinyl => sub 5,000 USD streamer generally sound pretty flat or dry (some may call it analytical) , anything below $1,000 USD streamer or turntable, you might be better off with digital radio. 

Streamer vs CD => below 5,000 USD set up, I think CD prevails in general. 

I would say, there are some products that offer standard sound quality to the market. Usually integrated all in ones can be a good start for digital and make a way up or to separates with DAC, vinyls, I can't say much since there are lots and lots of combinations that can be offered here to surpass digital components from $ 10,000.00 USD to sky is the only limit here. 

But in the end, the higher you want to get, you do need a good pair of speakers to reveal the true capabilities or characteristics of your components as well. 

Ultimately, the 'best' amounts to 'the one you happen to prefer'.... Digital is great, Analog is great, music is great.... 

It use to be one had to spend alot of money to get digital even close to analog.With all the advancements in dacs including lower cost its the opposite now....but as they say there are 3 reasons why analog is inferior..1/ snap 2,/crackle 3/ pop...sorry analog guys but digital rules now. 

When the technology was new some digitally remastered LP's were poorly done.  It's less of an issue nowadays, loudness wars not withstanding.

Realistically what flaws?

Poor men who don’t realize the digital is a better format than the analog one.

There have been many many 33.3 RPm LPs which were DIGITALLY mastered.

@r27y8u92 Nice to see someone else gets it.

The fact is digital is the superior sounding format, but it’s not without its flaws. There are just fewer of them.

A lot of that so called etching is too lively a room that they then fix with a soft analog system. They take an aspirin when they really need antibiotics.

Poor men who don't realize the digital is a better format than the analog one.

There have been many many 33.3 RPm LPs which were DIGITALLY mastered.

• Why? At the time, turntable music was still dominant than CD players. So, recording companies had to make LPs but they did know the DIGITAL is both theoretically and practically superior to the ANALOG systems. In order to improve LP's SQ, they included some of digital tech, period!
• I do listen to LPs still now. Why, there is no CD version of my LPs.
• If you cannot believe CD is better than LP, then your digital system is of low quality.
• Most Americans do like bass-emphasized music listening, which means they don't know actual live music produces a lot of high-pitch, etching sound (like CD playing).

@deludedaudiophile , It is what people come up with to supplant knowledge that I find most interesting. We do not like voids. We fill them in with .....mythology.

Not again?

There is yes differences between analog/digital, but they are minute one compared to the difference between an ordinary living room and a dedicated acoustic room

@mahgister In this respect I total agree. The other far more significant difference is in the recording itself. If there are a vinyl and CD release that are exactly the same, I am not aware of it. Of course even if there was, there is so much variation in turntables from each other and from optimum, that a direct comparison would still be difficult without testing the turntable system for operation first. Sorry naysayers, that will require test equipment.

@mijostyn   Knowledge scares some people. What scares people even more is knowledge that others possess that they do not. Rejecting that knowledge is a defence mechanism.

After exploring and discovering acoustic/psycho-acoustic optimalization methods, mechanical one only inspired by Helmholtz in my case , i discovered why people argue so much about analog/digital and cables, which are secondary choices in term of S.Q. impact compared to the incredible impact of acoustic and psycho-acoustic settings adapted and fine tuned for a specific system and specific ears...

They had no idea in a non dedicated room what is the real potential S.Q. of any good relatively well chosen system even their own...

There is yes differences between analog/digital, but they are minute one compared to the difference between an ordinary living room and a dedicated acoustic room... And by the way let me smile because my system value is low compared to all the money some invested without even adressing the room/speakers/each ear relation. save at best a few acoustic panels..

It is the reason why i am neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist, because these distinctions had no meaning at all and were created by the marketing of electronic gear...Not by acousticians for sure....

For sure using my ears to tune a room, objectivist will put me with the subjectivist...

They dont understand and cannot fathom even what i spoke about... It seems i am almost the only one to say that here....

Like we learn music art and language, we must learn basic acoustic and psycho-acoustic science, art and language; and learning here is not only reading about the LEV/ASW ratio in s small room for example, it is experimenting with it to hear it really...Same with timbre and all other acoustic concepts...

Even acousticians experimented and learn about the acoustic of small room compared to Hall acoustic... Why not you?

Learning has nothing to do with buying publicized marketed piece of gear...I quit that obsession after my 2 years intensive acoustic experiments...

I wrote this post for the only one person who reading it will save his money, read acoustic research articles and inspired by them will do some simple basic experiments... Nothing is more fun... It takes much time yes but cost me nothing...

I think my post will be useful for one....Which is not so common... I remember my situation 10 years ago now , reading audio thread to buy the best components....It had help me to do so yes, but the problem was that there is NO END to the best component to buy... And most audiophiles not knowing anything about acoustic suffer upgraditis... And it is a contagious disease...

Acoustic is the only remedy...

memo to legit users

don't nibble at the troll-bait... ok?

onwards!

@deludedaudiophile , the mysticism of ignorance. 

@mijostyn ,

I can only assume that people reject the factual reality because they do not understand in enough detail the measured values and what they mean, coupled with auditory perceptions that reinforce to them what they already believe.The inability, in this case, to do rapid side by side comparisons continues the belief.

People often reject scientific facts due to their inability to fully understand the information available to them. Our recent "world problem" illustrated that, but many other examples abound that result in incorrect fringe views. My ears, my eyes, my interpretation of data. I regularly get told "how batteries work" by laypeople. I design them for a living. I just shake my head. That didn't happen so much in semiconductors in general because most people have so little experience that even offering an opinion is not possible.

Digital is sooo superior!

Analog just sounds better.

@ghdprentice , Come on! You know that was staged:-)

It is an odd set of circumstances. For an absolute fact, digital reproduction has a much better signal to noise level and distortion that is at least an order of magnitude if not two less than analog. I have at least 100 albums in both analog and digital form and I would say that it is an even split as to which I prefer. However I can tell instantly which program source I am listening to. As a generalization what I have noticed is that analog sources have a heightened ambience in relation to digital which makes the soundstage seem deeper as if more echo was added to the master. I can hear why people like this even though it is artificial. 

When asked I will tell people who have not started an LP collection not to bother with analog. It is expensive and a PITA. They are better off putting their money into digital equipment and music. Those of us with large collections have to make the most of it and SOTA analog reproduction is very seductive. In my system that  amounts to $35,000 in analog equipment alone! 

@sns Done with the discussion of measurements vs sensory perception.

Agreed!
This poor dead horse has been beaten countless times. Dismissing what you hear with an audio component is akin to buying video products and paying no heed to what you see on the screen. Irrational behavior.

Charles

“Why in High End audio do differences of preference and taste have to result in potential conflict? …..Analogue for you, digital for me. Both are splendid options.”
@charles1dad

Well said, my sentiments exactly!

Done with the discussion of measurements vs sensory perception.

Neither of us build commercially, I'm a curious diy, have been long building my own general purpose computers, thought I'd give music server computer a try. Bang for the buck is off the charts with diy music servers, commercial servers all use off the shelf motherboards with optimized OS, really not much more than that to most of them. They don't render well, lucky if they have nice power supply. My present server is combo off the shelf/diy, I don't waste effort on rendering with it, so impact on sound quality much less than the servers doing rendering, the thing is vast majority of off the shelf servers pay no attention to rendering, yet they charge like they're doing mass amounts of R&D. These guys likely have the greatest profit margins in audio, along with the cable guys. So, you and I may have something in common when it comes to marketing hype. Difference is I don't observe market hype with at least some of the white papers I've read, in these cases the particular person writing the paper doesn't have a product to sell using the technical knowledge they're expanding on.

And if you believe it. Prove it with your ears. Should be easy .... Just proven can tell two servers apart .... No looking though.

You build servers commercially?  You implied that in your post. What company?

Yes they are a waste.

Engineers and scientists vastly more knowledgeable on this topic than them (or me) all call it a waste.

White paper in consumer audio are just marketing fluff. If they made a real difference they would publish measurements that show a clear improvement in end products. They don’t publish those measurements. Why is that?

Many DACs are already operating within a few db of their chip vendors theoretical limits. You think they are improving on that? Do you think you could hear a difference at those limits?

So the Taiko Extremes, Wadax, Pink Faun, Innuos Statements, Antipodes are waste of money. You think you know more about  technical aspects of streaming hardware than the experts. I guess that makes you a cut above the experts, lets see your white papers so we can observe your expertise.

I'm sure you've heard all the highest end streaming equipment, so you have both the technical expertise and the golden ear. Oh, forgot, you don't trust your sensory perceptions, no need to listen.

By the way, we're building our servers based on this research, so I'm not contributing to the audio 'charlatans' you claim them to be. These experiments will gain us empirical knowledge, but we know you consider that invalid since our sensory perceptions are far too faulty. Ones and Zeros, all very simple, hilarious.

Funny how objectivists believe they win every argument, never provide refutation of every point of contention, simply revert to measurements and argument sensory perception can't be trusted, don't need PHD for this simplistic conclusion.

Close minded people have no chance to learn since they refuse to allow an experience that could cause them to reevaluate.

@overthemoon  Perhaps fairly easy to build a digital setup if playing cd's, Streaming may not be an easy plug and play endeavor, all you have to do is follow some of these streaming threads to see how complex this can be. I've long had vinyl setups, I agree they can be rather complex, still pales in comparison to streaming. Innovations and new ideas coming fast and furious. Just today I had conversation in regard to diy clone build of extreme high end music server, this being Taiko Extreme server, the complexity is just amazing. And to think the music server is only one component of many that go into streaming, the whole thing is sort of like researching and writing a dissertation! Now that I think of it, sure would be nice to see  dissertations on this very subject. Checking out the white papers on one single aspect of streaming can be quite complex and involving, virtual dissertations in themselves. Discussions of latency and non volatile RAM are just two small aspects which are extremely complex in themselves.

There are many others who think like me.

Good luck with your digital audiophile endeavour.

I am sure you aren’t alone with your preferences. That’s great! Stick with what pleases you most. Why in High End audio do differences of preference and taste have to result in potential conflict? It makes zero sense. Just go with what works best for you and call it a day.

Analogue for you, digital for me. Both are splendid options.

Charles

For me the difference is listening to music vs listening to my system.  But I easily have 5X more invested in digital and spend most of my time listening to digital.  I just hate listening to the last track on a a record knowing I have to get up when it's over.

I need a record Butler.

@deludedaudiophile - I can see why that guy so looking forward to brain implants. 

Unfortunately here, I have no idea if you are being serious or sarcastic. :-)

@deludedaudiophile 

+1. Don’t forget that we have not landed on the moon also.

There are many who think the world is flat too, like really believe it. That does not make them remotely correct. People much smarter and knowledgeable have shown the world is not flat just like they have shown repeatedly that what comes off a turntable or tape machine is not remotely as close to the original signal as modern digital. Sometime we just have to accept that what we believe is wrong.

There are many others who think like me.

Good luck with your digital audiophile endeavour.

It's 2022. We shouldn't be discussing the merits of digital any more. Current digital will recreate any audio waveform, note, etc. better than any analog recording format we have. It's not remotely close. No one with any respectability in electronics will question this. It just is. 2022 people.  There is a reason no one uses analog recording and I don't just mean audio.