the Op's foray into analog was one of the silliest comparisons ever, someone please help this kid better understand what it takes to do analog correctly !!
Digital is far better than vinyl
I have invested a decent sum of money into my digital setup, including a decent streamer (Innuos Zenith MK3), a very good dac (Denafrips Terminator 2), Eno filter, and good cabling. But after being told by many here that vinyl is vastly superior to digital, I thought let’s build an analog system and see what all the fuss is about. So this is what I did ...
I picked up an Audio Technica TT from Amazon for around $299. I then used one of the older integrated amps with a built-in phono, which I believe I paid around $500 a few years ago. And, finally, just to even out the playing field I bought the cheapest possible cables from alibaba. Since I didn’t have extra rack space to put the TT on, I got a couple of bricks and built a DIY platform for it.
So after listening to the analog setup for a few days, I can proclaim without a shadow of doubt that digital is far, far superior than vinyl on any given day, and twice a day on Sunday.
What has been your experience? And please, don’t mention your gear or any special. cartridges, isolation, etc. Not interested in your system details. I just want to make sure you guys understand that digital is far, far superior than vinyl.
- ...
- 200 posts total
It's all very subjective. I have streaming, CDs, tapes and vinyl and depending on my mood, I'll play something from any of those formats. I love streaming for the convenience and I think it sounds quite good. But I also miss the days of record 'shopping' and playing whole albums with my friends. It was an 'event' to buy the record, unwrap it, clean it and play it. Streaming doesn't have any of that. |
Over the years there has been a fundamental misconception regarding the quality of digital recordings over analog recordings. The first thing to do is actually compare a vinyl pressing of the same recording present on a CD - naturally, on a high quality playback system. Based on my experience, an original digital recording (DDD) tends to sound much better on a CD (lower distortion, better dynamics, no background noise, etc.); on the other hand, original analog recordings (ADD and AAD) can often sound better when played off an LP; but there is a reason behind these sonic differences. When transferring an analog recording to the digital domain, the audio engineer is often tempted to try to filter out some of the background hiss inherent to the original tape, thus modifying the frequency response of the recording, limiting both the high frequencies and the original dynamics of the recording. The result is a cleaner recording, but with a dull sound. When the analog tape is transferred to the digital domain without trying to filter out the background hiss, the recording sounds great and, actually, the CD allows you to take full advantage of the superior dynamic range of the system compared to the LP. A couple of examples. Mendelssohn: Piano Concertos, Murray Perahia soloist, Sir Neville Marriner cond. The LP sounds great, with crisp high frequencies. When it was reissued on CD, I was surprised by the lack of high frequencies. This is an old Columbia Masterworks recording. Schumann: Konzertstuck for four horns, Klaus Tennstedt, Berliner Philharmoniker, EMI. The LP sounds great, with crisp high frequencies and a very dynamic and transparent sound. When it was reissued on CD, I was truly irritated by the lack of high frequencies, because this is a beautiful performance and it deserves the best sound possible. Please consider the fact that 90% of the LPs published in the early 1980s where produced from a digital master, so they cannot sound any better than a CD. Of course, there is another thing to consider. The RIAA curve of most phono inputs tends to be a little “euphonic”, in other words, the RIAA equalization isn’t very accurate and is often tuned to produce a slightly enhanced treble – for obvious reasons. This leads people into thinking that LPs sound better than CDs. All this is valid for 16 bit recordings, sampled at 44,1 kHz, with the levels set correctly. But this is old technology. The newer multibit systems with much higher sampling frequencies have opened the doors to the world of high resolution recordings. These are not going to make a difference if you transfer an old recording in Hi-Res; but if you decide to record a live performance in Hi-Res, the improvement over analog or 16/44.1 digital is absolutely breathtaking. I still listen to my old 78s. Not for their sound quality, but because of the intrinsic artistic value of the performances recorded on them.
|
Well … everyone is in their own quest. Every person actually HEARS differently in every different acoustical set up. So, what’s the digital- analog argument? I guess it becomes political …resembles talking heads on network news… all false… only when audiophiles look in the mirror… there’s not a comparable shame knowing that they can or cannot be…SATISFIED WITH THEIR SOUND? |
You are mistaken. A CD is limited to 20 kHz FR, and the circuit and filters used to ensure that are not necessarily transparent. On the other hand, an LP can easily sail above 20 kHz. So yes, a digital recording can sometimes sound better on LP that CD, and I've explained only one reason why that can be so. |
- 200 posts total