2. analog
  3. 1159837156

Is Digital actually better than Analog?

I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music.
Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
128x128musicaudio
nrchy's avatar
nrchy
2,124 posts
 
Sean, it seems to me that Ncarv knows the theory very well. Everything he said is true! Proponants of digital have been fighting against these basic design flaws for over 25 years. They are getting a handle on the design flaws and digital sounds much better today than it ever did, but it's hard to ignore the OBVIOUS FLAWS of the format!

But, we certainly don't want to resort to facts while we perpetuate this tired debate!
seandtaylor99
1,262 posts
 
Nrchy, you are wrong. Digital is only a broken stairstep if you ignore low pass and in particular sin(x)/x filters. Analog no more has infinite sampling or quantization than digital does, as it too is limited by its medium, which imposes a limitation on bandwidth, dynamic range, and signal to noise ratio. Only in bandwidth is analog even theoretically superior to digital.

This article is an interesting examination of how the size of the vinyl molecules means that LPs are actually quantized in a similar way to digital audio.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html
tarsando
578 posts
 
But, re analogue waveforms and analogue wiggles in groves...music isn't plastic, music doesn't go round at 33 and a third etc. The argument for analogue from analogy isn't convincing. It's not hard (it's certainly not a logical impossibility) to think of a totally digital system that is better than anything we have heard yet. And who's to say that 100 years from now the best music reproduction system won't be some technology that we don't even know about now?
petland
85 posts
 
everything said is accurate. Analog is more work. both can be very satisfying. In my mind great analog is far more convincing of acousitic space and the textures of that space. the best digital creates a different sense of space, somtimes more grand, but still dryer and less colorful than the best analog.
I think part of your post has more to do with the double edge sword of increasing resolution. I have found that climbing the resolution ladder on the digital side of the fence is far more unpredictable and potentially fatiguing than the same efforts in analog. High res digital really demands that you have your system in good order, especially the current generation of hyper detailed digitial sources.
jjmali
108 posts
 
Tastes change. I went from a Krell setup that as I used all digital with to a tube setup that I only play analog on. I do not believe there is a right way to enjoy music. What is right for one is wrong for others.

I do get a kick out of people who talk about the "work" involved in analog. In my opinion if you consider it work, analog is not for you. For me the steps I take to play vinyl are an important part of the whole experience. It is actually part of what I love about analog. There is no magic in handling a cd. The whole idea of album art was destroyed by the cd.

In closing, the individual has to decide which medium is better for them. For me there is no comparison.
More to discover