Why is my digital outperforming my analog?

[Hifi jim]

"Waxing poetic" would be a good technique for describing music performances. When applied to technical matters it sounds silly to me.

Fair enough, even though it's only your personal opinion.

My pessimistic view of high-end cables actually was developed due to 4 years of Electrical Engineering training and 49 years of experience and on-the-job training in the field.

I studied electrical theory for five years and work as an industrial electrician everyday, but I still HEAR a difference when I compare cables. Your point of view suggests that the engineers who design cables are full of [bs], why are you right and they're wrong?

Besides the fact that there is no such thing as "wider dynamics", a CD has about twice the dynamic range of vinyl, 96 dB vs 50 dB.

CDs have the potential to have a wider dynamic range, but in this case the reviewer was comparing a recording as much as the formats themselves. Some recordings will sound better on LP and some on CD, in my opinion it depends which format the recording was originally optimized for. I own plenty of dynamically challenged CDs which sound quite the opposite on LP.

Anyone can have an opinion and anyone has the right to express that opinion.

These are just my opinions... []

[sfogg]

Dave,

"I understand what you said, but I didn't get your point.

Certainly an LP is analog all they way. However, it is still several layers of abstraction from the trumpet. A digital recording of a trumpet is also an abstraction layer."

I think we basically agree.

An analog recording of a trumpet is just one way of representing parts of the original. It is not the same thing as the original trumpet.

A digital recording of a trumpet is just another way of representing parts of the original. It is not the same thing as the original trumpet.

A trumpet isn't analog or digital, it is a trumpet.

Shawn

[Hifi jim]

As to 2, I can tell before the system is turned on which type of audiophile I am meeting.  If the CD player is connected with the cables that came in the box, you can bet the person is music oriented.  The two groups are virtually incapable of comprehending each other and this unrecognized difference in perception is usually responsible for the nastiest cat fights in this group.

Being of near equal left/right brain function, I like both types.  I fall a bit more into the music listener type, but I understand the gear head and often learn important things from them. 

A very interesting and observant perspective Dave. Although I might take issue with one small detail. True, I do use cables that did not come in the box with my CD player, however I've been a lifelong fan of music long before I could play an instrument or set up a Hi-Fi. To my friends and family, I'm the music guy and my love of music is known to all that I've met. My appreciation for gear is something that developed while searching for something that sounded more real or live. While listening I tend to focus on many different aspects, and of course these can change depending on my mood but I always put the music first. If I could find the sound I desire from a tiny black box void of tweaks and cables, I'd be all for it. Until that day, my Hi Fi aspirations are purely based on the pursuit of making my music sound life like in its reproduction. Live music is something I play, listen to and yearn to recreate in the luxury and privacy of my own home. It is... all about the music []

[Mallette]

>...which format the recording was originally optimized for."

OK, this isn't my debate...but I CANNOT let that pass. A recording that is accurate in the first placed can only be made less accurate by "optimizing," whatever that means. Let me state this clearly: An accurate recording cannot be improved, but only degraded. In the case of an LP, tha means you MUST decrease the dynamic range if you are dealing with a piano or a pipe organ at their full potential. That makes it less accurate. As to digital, I have no idea how one would "optimize" for it. If you mean downsampling, yes, that will degrade it more or less depending upon the sample rate or format you are coming from.

But in no case can you "optimize" in the common sense of the word to make it sound better.

Dave

[sfogg]

Don,

"However, whoever in the audio press that wrote that a vinyl version of a Roy Orbison recording has "wider dynamics" than the CD version isn't going to get any respect from me. Besides the fact that there is no such thing as "wider dynamics", a CD has about twice the dynamic range of vinyl, 96 dB vs 50 dB."

How can't a recording have wider dynamics? Take one recording then put it through a dynamic compressor and compare it to the original. The original has what some might call wider dynamics.

CD of course has the potential for greater dynamic range. But if the vinyl and the CD are from different mixes (which they probably are....) then as far as which has the wider dynamic range for that album then all bets are off. Too many people automatically assume differences in sound are just due to the delivery format without considering the very real potential differences in mixes.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"but I still HEAR a difference when I compare cables. "

Try comparing them blindfolded when you don't know what you are listening too.

The problem the cable club has with this is that everything somebody does this they fail to be able to hear any differences in the cables except in the extreme cases of cables having very wacky RLC values.

Shawn

[Mallette]

Jim:

Just caught your response as I posted mine. Make sure you understand I am all for the gearhead and enjoy their company. The way you responded told me how you came to be able to hear nuances that I don't and never will. My focus is on the source material. I can tell you all sorts of info that would bore you to death about the mikes, positions, environment, etc of a recording after listening for a bit.

All of us have our foci, and it takes us all to generate a true vision.

Dave

[Don Richard]

.

My pessimistic view of high-end cables actually was developed due to 4 years of Electrical Engineering training and 49 years of experience and on-the-job training in the field.

I studied electrical theory for five years and work as an industrial electrician everyday, but I still HEAR a difference when I compare cables. Your point of view suggests that the engineers who design cables are full of , why are you right and they're wrong?

I can make up a set of cables that sound different from another set of cables and I have actually heard differences in a pair of expensive interconnect cables, but in each case they were (would be) designed to change frequency response via reactance. The change I heard was not a positive one. The idea here is to have a cable pass a signal without changing it, or to effect as small a change as possible. If one wishes to alter the frequency balance of an audio signal, get an EQ and tweak all you want. If you get the sound all screwed up, zero the sliders and start over. Decent EQs are available cheaper than high-end cables. What about integrated amps? Are they inferior because they don't allow the use of interconnects? Are you suggesting that one should put an interconnect cable through the tape loop to enable their use? Haha

.

Anyone can have an opinion and anyone has the right to express that opinion.

These are just my opinions...

Wonderful. Now where are your facts? Heck, I'll settle for a logical explanation of how dynamics can be made "wider"

[Hifi jim]

My focus is on the source material.  I can tell you all sorts of info that would bore you to death about the mikes, positions, environment, etc of a recording after listening for a bit. 

All of us have our foci, and it takes us all to generate a true vision.

I envy your position Dave. I wanted to be an audio engineer when I was in HS, but Dad thought otherwise about that career path [:@]. My point earlier was that I simply don't think or see myself as a gearhead, but I've been wrong before [*-)]

[Hifi jim]

CD of course has the potential for greater dynamic range. But if the vinyl and the CD are from different mixes (which they probably are....) then as far as which has the wider dynamic range for that album then all bets are off. Too many people automatically assume differences in sound are just due to the delivery format without considering the very real potential differences in mixes.

Thanks Shawn, this is what I was trying to get across to Dave before but I didn't use the "optimal" [:$] language. []

[Don Richard]

How can't a recording have wider dynamics? Take one recording then put it through a dynamic compressor and compare it to the original. The original has what some might call wider dynamics.

CD of course has the potential for greater dynamic range. But if the vinyl and the CD are from different mixes (which they probably are....) then as far as which has the wider dynamic range for that album then all bets are off. Too many people automatically assume differences in sound are just due to the delivery format without considering the very real potential differences in mixes.

When a vinyl master is cut from a master tape, compression (or gain riding) is always used because even 30 year old 8 track master tapes posess more dynamic range than the vinyl can take. Unless the CD is being intentionally mastered for max loudness, less stereo bus compression will be used.

With regard to the Roy Orbison album, Mobile Fidelity Lab would try to limit such manipulation as much as possible for each format. That's their reputation, anyway.

[Mallette]

CD of course has the potential for greater dynamic range. But if the vinyl and the CD are from different mixes (which they probably are....) then as far as which has the wider dynamic range for that album then all bets are off. Too many people automatically assume differences in sound are just due to the delivery format without considering the very real potential differences in mixes.

Thanks Shawn, this is what I was trying to get across to Dave before but I didn't use the "optimal" language.

Vinyl can carry the dynamics for a lot of music without compression. String quartet, for example. CD can handle the dynamics of all music without compression.

As to mixes, all mixes degrade. Goes with the process. Of course, a lot of modern music could not exist without a mixer. Nothing I record needs one, and I don't own one. Certainly digital mixing does less damage, but if you have to mix a recording of an acoustic event your mikes weren't in the right place and you will never make it sound as if they were. If you could, you'd have gotten your mikes in the right place to begin with. []

Dave

[bliss53]

I am on the gear head side of the continum, but I have always been able to get a better sound (in my opinion) from analog. I have tried several cd players and several turntables/preamp/cartridge combinations. When the vinyl does not sound better to me than the CD there is usually a turntable/tonearm/cartridge set up problem. My 1.5 cents.

[sfogg]

"When a vinyl master is cut from a master tape, compression (or gain
riding) is always used because even 30 year old 8 track master tapes
posess more dynamic range than the vinyl can take. Unless the CD is
being intentionally mastered for max loudness, less stereo bus
compression will be used."

But
that is the point, on a lot of CDs they are mixed for max loudness.
Where on the vinyl they basically know the systems that is going to
still be playing back vinyl are going to be quality systems. It may be
mixed differently there.

Its kind of like difference
between soundtracks on LD and DVD. DVD technically has better sound
quality then anything LD could do. However there are a number of movies
out there that the LD soundtrack simply blows away the same movie on
DVD. Sometimes even with the LD being 2 channel Dolby Surround vs.
multi-channel on the DVD. The reason for this was LD was a niche market
and only in good systems. Soundtracks were mastered for that. DVD is
the everyman format and on some movies were mixed/mastered taking that
into consideration too.

Shawn

[sfogg]

Pete,

"but I have always been able to get a better sound (in my opinion) from
analog. I have tried several cd players and several
turntables/preamp/cartridge combinations. "

Enjoy it then. Vinyl has its own sound that is enjoyable and many like. It also appeals to the hands on aspect in changing cartridges, phono pre-amps, alignment...etc...etc... that lets one tune the sound in more to their tastes. Digital basically lacks that hands on aspect to dialing it all in.

Shawn

[Mallette]

"When a vinyl master is cut from a master tape, compression (or gain
riding) is always used because even 30 year old 8 track master tapes
posess more dynamic range than the vinyl can take. Unless the CD is
being intentionally mastered for max loudness, less stereo bus
compression will be used."

But
that is the point, on a lot of CDs they are mixed for max loudness.
Where on the vinyl they basically know the systems that is going to
still be playing back vinyl are going to be quality systems. It may be
mixed differently there.

Its kind of like difference
between soundtracks on LD and DVD. DVD technically has better sound
quality then anything LD could do. However there are a number of movies
out there that the LD soundtrack simply blows away the same movie on
DVD. Sometimes even with the LD being 2 channel Dolby Surround vs.
multi-channel on the DVD. The reason for this was LD was a niche market
and only in good systems. Soundtracks were mastered for that. DVD is
the everyman format and on some movies were mixed/mastered taking that
into consideration too.

Shawn

Perhaps the above is why so many seem to prefer my CD's to the "pros?" I don't even normalize them. What I got is what I burn. I try to get an optimum level to start with, and that is, well, an optimum level.

Dave

[Mallette]

I don't think the important sonic difference between commercial CD and commercial LP is dynamic range. Not by any stretch of the imagination, or by any facts apparent in my collection of CDs and LPs. Wow - that's a swing and a miss if ever there was one.

I believe you hit the nail on the head, Mark.

Properly done, there should be no difference in a first class LP of a string quartet and a version in digital format. I think poor engineering and "optimization" is the culprit in both cases. The various bias of the listener ascribes these to the format.

Whether reel to reel, cassette, CD, SACD, DVD-A, LP or whatever, it is possible to acheive accuracy with sufficient care by the engineer. For purposes other than "audiophilia," I've just purchased a first class cassette deck that's been recently re-aligned and tested. I think I'll dig up a metal cassette and make a DBX encoded transfer of my Foster piano recording. I am going to bet in advance that it will be indistinguishable from the master.

Dave

[sfogg]

The discussion on dynamics was from the quote you posted. That discussion was really about the differences in mixes.

There
are other factors having to do with the sound of vinyl too. The phase
difference between L/R is what gives the depth/ambience to vinyl for
example.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"Properly done, there should be no difference in a first class LP of a string quartet and a version in digital format. "

That won't be the case.

Where
you could have no difference is recording the vinyl playback to digital
and then comparing that against the vinyl. Or putting an A/D-D/A chain
in the vinyl playback vs. not there at all.

Shawn

[sfogg]

The CD sounds flat in comparison because it doesn't have the phase differences introduced between L/R that is part and parcel of vinyl playback.

Shawn