Digital vs analog

[whatever55]

I read many people are going back to vinyl vs CD's or music server for sound purity.

Thoughts on a digital crossover vs analog crossover affecting sound.

[Don Richard]

Digital equipment these days is much better than 30 years ago when digital was in it's infancy. Modern digital crossovers do much more than performing crossover functions. Nearly all of them can do EQs, delay correction, limiting and some can accept digital inputs directly thus eliminating a digital to analog conversion. Putting all of these extras into an analog setup would sound worse than the digital processor.

[Chris A]

Thoughts on a digital crossover vs analog crossover affecting sound

I have yet to find anyone that can hear artifacts of digital crossover filters (...with the possible exception of Dean G and rigma...), but I've personally heard the effects of poor analog crossover filters many times, especially ones with shallow filters (i.e., Butterworth) and the absence of driver/horn time alignment. Note that there are inexpensive digital crossover units (for instance, the Behringer DEQ2496) that apparently have issues with electrolytic caps in their analog output circuits.

I've found that few folks have actually heard the combined effect of steep slope filters, simultaneously PEQed flat for frequencies below the room's Schroeder frequency and compensated for driver/horn time misalignments. It's pretty dramatic once you get everything dialed in, IME.

(Just my $0.02. [8])

I read many people are going back to vinyl vs CD's or music server for sound purity.

You mean the recordings that were recorded digitally, then later D/Aed into an RIAA filter, then impressed into vinyl which has FR, wow, and flutter issues, has better FR on the outside grooves of the record, mono bass, much lower SNR (at least 40 dB higher relative noise levels), not to mention a whole host of phase-related and print-through "enhancements"?

Chris []

[Quiet_Hollow]

I read many people are going back to vinyl vs CD's or music server for sound purity.

[8-)] Keep reading...it's 2013, things are just a little bit different.

[artto]

The analog process in its simplist and purist form:

An analog multi-track master tape initially records the sound.

In order to preserve the original master an analog tape copy is made. The second tape recorder adds its own distortion, frequency anomalies and phase shift to the equation. Keep in mind these are cumulative at each stage of the analog process.

The analog tape copy is "tweaked" making adjustments for amplitude, mix, balance, etc.

The above analog tape is mixed down to 2-channel stereo to another analog tape which contributes its own additive distortion, frequency anomalies and phase shift.

Assuming the above 2-channel analog tape is used to cut the lacquer master as opposed to making another analog tape copy which is tweaked to compensate for short comings of analog vinyl LP playback, a lacquer master record is cut.

The lacquer master record is plated making an inverse copy of the original lacquer master.

Assuming that vinyl records will be pressed from this first generation inverse copy of the lacquer master, the first vinyl pressing is made. It is extremely unlikely that you will ever obtain a first generation, first pressing. With each vinyl copy made from the inverse master there is deterioration in the inverse lacquer master. Typically many thousands of pressings will be made from this master. With big label mass market manufacturers the numbers are more likely to be in the 100's of thousands for each master.

Assuming that the vinyl record center hole is located perfectly in the middle (which it most is likely not)

And assuming that the record grooves were pressed perfectly concentric in the vinyl (which it most likely is not)

And assuming that the record is pressed from 100% virgin vinyl.........

And that the record vinyl is perfectly flat.......................

We then put this almost certainly nonperfect analog vinyl record which has pressed plastic grooves which are now "how many generations away from the original"? on to a high quality transcription turntable.........

And then we place a nearly microscopic polish diamond which is hanging on the end of a cantilever suspended in some sort of flexible fulcrum of which on the opposite end of the cantilever are attached magnets or coils................

And then we are going to drag this tiny stone hanging on the end of a cantilever at 7.5 inches per second attempting to trace an undulating three dimensional pressed plastic groove with not one, but two channels of sound information no less.........

And then we're going amplify the audio signal we get from this 10,000 times.

I'm amazed that we get as much out of this seemingly ridiculous process as we do.

And then of course, all of this, the tracing mechanisim as well as the vinyl deteriorate with each playback regardless of how carefully it is handled, how good the equipment is, how good the storage conditions are, etc, etc, etc.

Keep in mind that what I've described above is pretty much the bare minimum required in producing an analog vinyl record with the possible exception of direct-to-disk recording which obviously eliminates the analog tape generational losses but also has some caveats of its own.

I'm amazed that we get as much out of this seemingly ridiculous process as we do.

FWIW, I am, in fact, the first person in the United States, guaranteed by Sony, to take delivery of their first CD player, the CDP-101 as well as the original 14 CD released. I will also tell you as a matter of fact, that I was extremely disappointed (actually very mad) that I had spent a couple grand (1983) for something that sounded so absolutely aweful and thought to myself "I've been listening to better for 15 years!". I wrote all kinds of nasty letters to Sony and CBS and got more than one recording engineer and producer raging mad with my comments.

Considering the above outlined scenario of making an analog vinyl record and playing it back all I can say is some people like distortion and some people don't. And some people don't know the difference.

To each his own. As always, your milage may vary.

[8-|]

[artto]

As far as digital verses analog crossovers go, obviously a lot will have to do with the quality of the component itself.

However, just as point of reference, for something as simple as a subwoofer output, the analog sub out on my McIntosh MX130 preamp/processor is no where near as accurate as the crossover on my new NAD C390DD all digital integrated amp.

[DizRotus]

IMHO, the best digital beats the best analog.

The controversy is stoked by the reality that a lot of vinyl recordings are very good, while a lot of digital recordings are very bad. Again, IMHO, what keeps good vinyl around is the fact that many of the performances and recordings were excellent and they can only be found on vinyl. If I had a vinyl pressing (or analog tape) of such a performance/recording, I would play it back on the best analog equipment available and preserve it in the best digital format available.

As indicated by Artto's excellent post, there's nothing inherently superior about dragging a tiny diamond over bumpy plastic and playing it back through RIAA equalization. At its best, it deteriorates each time you play it.

At least excellent vinyl recordings start great and then deteriorate. Bad performances, poorly recorded in a compressed digital format start out bad and stay that way.

A metaphor comes to mind. An excellent recording of an excellent performance of great music is more enjoyable if played through a clock radio than a poor (compressed) recording of a poor performance of inferior music played through one of the the absolute best audio reproduction systems, for example, Artto's. Obviously, the best scenario is an excellent recording of an excellent performance of excellent music played back through Artto's excellent system in his optimized listening space (but that's a whole other topic).

The best digital or the best analog will both sound excellent, at first. Over time, the analog, whether vinyl or magnetic tape, will deteriorate.

Nonetheless, reasonable people will continue to fan the analog versus digital debate. It's fair to like what you like. I hope we can agree that the message (the music) is more important than the medium (vinyl vs digital, tube vs SS, zip cord vs boutique wire, Klipsch vs Bose, etc.) and just enjoy good music, whatever you define that to be.

It's not the paper or the ink that make Lincoln's Gettysburg Address memorable, it's the content.

[mustang guy]

What I have found is that SACD's and DVD-A's cut from the original master tapes are the best I'd laid my ears on. I have side by side compared Vinyl, CD, and SACD of the same record, and can say that there is a huge difference with the SACD as compared to the other two.

Oh, and here is the "How It's Made" episode for the Vinyl records:

[rigma]

Yep, I have compared Digital vs Analog side by side, same music, many times. Everytime in my opinion analog was the winner. My wife, Beck, is even more diehard analog than me.[8-)]

rigma

[Audio Flynn]

NOS Valves and I listened tothe Wadia 'Intuition' at the AXPONA show a couple of weeks back. Intuition is a Class D+ integrated amp with 7 digital inputs and two analog inputs.

Played through a pair of non decript dome tweeter towers it sounded amazing. 12 pounds and 350 watts per chanel into 4 ohms. Pretty nuts.

It is not the same discussion from 5 or 10 years ago.

Wheter it is amplification or source material digital does amazing things in the current day. I hope to fully utilize an AudioQuest Dragonfly this year to better understand what a computer music library can acheive.

My preference is to stay with the objective of getting the music into the analog realm as soon as possible. I will stay with tube amps!

[Turbox]

I agree with Dizrotus. I like both...

i prefer the nastalgia of analog for when friends come over. I have purchased a few records that my son likes on purpose, so he can also get into that history and when his friends come over, most have never even seen a vinyl record.

I prefer the convenience of digital, stored on a hard drive, enough said there.

[artto]

I agree with Dizrotus. I like both...

i prefer the nastalgia of analog for when friends come over. I have purchased a few records that my sone likes on purpose, so he can also get into that history and when his friends come over, most have never even seen a vinyl record.

I prefer the convenience of digital, stored on a hard drive, enough said there.

Over the years as my system became more and more refined, more "dialed in" so to speak, I found less and less difference between analog and digital playback of the same recordings ~ until now.

I recently acquired a NAD C390DD direct digital integrated amplifier. I have to tell you, the experience was nothing short of a revelation! When it was time to take it back to the dealer and I had to put my triodes or McIntosh SS stuff back online it was a real let down. I couldn't believe what a difference this amp made, and I'm not usually all that keen on electronics, especially amplifiers making this big of a difference. The improvement was far greater than when many, many years ago I went from Crown DC300A to Luxman push-pull 50W triodes.

Currently I'm using a Sony SCD XA5400ES super audio player, HDMI output, so I can play the SACD layer digitally direct to the C390 HDMI input. This is an almost incomparible combination to anything analog. This is the paradigm changer. I can "see into" the recordings like never before. This is what I expected from digital/CD when it came out 30 years ago. Better late than never.

[Chris A]

I recently acquired a NAD C390DD direct digital integrated amplifier. I have to tell you, the experience was nothing short of a revelation!

Perhaps it is worthwhile to mention some ideas as to why there seems to be little response to your experience:

1) I believe that if you prefer the sound of live acoustic music over reproduced music, you probably have a different set of likes and dislikes over those who prefer their music amplified using equipment from 50-60 years ago (i.e., high distortion turning the sound "opaque"). If you listen primarily to electric/ electronic and other amplified music in which distortion is part of the performance then you will probably like to translate that experience to your sound reproduction equipment, and also include adding some of your own distortion.

2) Among those who do like to reproduce the sound of live acoustic music over amplified music I find that there are typically two subgroups: the "detail" folks that listen at low SPL to planar and full-range Lowther-type loudspeakers, and the much smaller crowd who have discovered high fidelity horn-loaded loudspeakers.

Further, I find that the tastes in what these two groups listen to also differ, with the "detail" folks liking music sounding good on direct radiating loudspeakers at low SPL, and the other subgroup...well...let's just say they don't care as much what they play because their systems can accurately reproduce the music (including dynamics) on the recording-and they care much more about the quality of the recordings without "enhancement".

I believe that this second subgroup are represented by the ones that bought PWK's Khorns--who were willing to pay for a new set in order to get "that realistic sound". I don't believe that PWK cared much for the tastes of those that didn't like their music clean and their systems not able to faithfully reproduce live music performance with real dynamics. (PWK apparently also didn't like to be around "corpulent" folks...but that's another story.)

Art, it's not a much of a surprise to me that you found an all digital DAC/preamp/amp that sounds much better to your ears. I experience the same thing as I systematically reduce the analog circuitry in my setup and use hi-fi digital electronics that minimize or eliminate most audible distortion sources. It believe that it was Nelson Pass that mentioned that convolved harmonic distortion makes reproduced music sound opaque.

My guess is that when you invite someone over to your basement to listen to your setup, it's the folks in that second subgroup that most enjoy the experience and seek to duplicate it in their own households: I'm clearly in that small crowd and it's not a mystery to me that I prefer the sound of live acoustic guitars over that of electric guitars, acoustic pianos over electric pianos, real percussion over electronic percussion, pipe organ over electronic organ, and real string and wind sections over synthesized string and wind instruments.

I also don't care for badly recorded music no matter how well it was performed in real life or how much I listened to bad recordings when I was young, never really getting used to it. (I also don't care for music where the performers don't sing or play on-pitch, whomever they are. But that's another subject.) Perhaps it was because I listened to and played live acoustic performances a lot (wind instrument with piano accompaniment, i.e. the piano is on pitch, and you have to get on pitch, too). Perhaps, too, this is why I continue to collect newly recorded performances with much improved digital recording equipment and digital recording techniques--including surround recordings.

The reason why analog seems to be making a "comeback"? You now know my point of view on that: no-[bs]

Chris

[DrWho]

I'm an analog audio processing engineer by profession and bust the chops of the digital guys all the time. At home however, I believe you should keep it digital for as long as possible. Once you take the hit by making the signal digital, you get all sorts of huge advantages that are simply impossible to replicate in the analog domain. Crossovers is probably one of the strongest areas for digital processing.... At the endof the day, I think it's important to remember that digital is a subset of analog and should be treated as such in how it's implemented.

[Boxx]

I'm an analog audio processing engineer by profession and bust the chops of the digital guys all the time. At home however, I believe you should keep it digital for as long as possible. Once you take the hit by making the signal digital, you get all sorts of huge advantages that are simply impossible to replicate in the analog domain. Crossovers is probably one of the strongest areas for digital processing.... At the endof the day, I think it's important to remember that digital is a subset of analog and should be treated as such in how it's implemented.

Mike, I tend to agree with what you have said. Thanks for your input.

[tromprof]

IMHO, the best digital beats the best analog.

My experience as well. Part of me wants to like the sound of my turntable better, and it does sound very good, but at this point well recorded digital material sounds better on my system. For romance, vinyl, for clarity, dynamics, range, etc. digital.

[LarryC]

Mebbe about 10 yrs ago, a lead guy at Wadia told me that good digital cost considerably more than good analog. I found that true at the time I was upgrading to my current setup.

What do you think now? Roughly comparable costs for equivalent digital and analog?

Thanks...

[bobdog]

Mebbe about 10 yrs ago, a lead guy at Wadia told me that good digital cost considerably more than good analog. I found that true at the time I was upgrading to my current setup.

What do you think now? Roughly comparable costs for equivalent digital and analog?

Thanks...

Not even close. Good analog costs way more. Many times as much. I believe the same was true 10 years ago as well. A case could be made that state of the art digital and state of the art analog could be similar in price (stuff like the DCS Vivaldi stack or the best of the best vinyl rigs)

[bobdog]

Mebbe about 10 yrs ago, a lead guy at Wadia told me that good digital cost considerably more than good analog. I found that true at the time I was upgrading to my current setup.

What do you think now? Roughly comparable costs for equivalent digital and analog?

Thanks...

Not even close. Good analog costs way more. Many times as much. I believe the same was true 10 years ago as well. A case could be made that state of the art digital and state of the art analog could be similar in price (stuff like the DCS Vivaldi stack or the best of the best vinyl rigs)

[garyrc]

(PWK apparently also didn't like to be around "corpulent" folks...but that's another story.)

Corpulent literally or figuratively? I'm guessing the latter, given your quotation marks.

Perhaps, too, this is why I continue to collect newly recorded performances with much improved digital recording equipment and digital recording techniques--including surround recordings.

The primary reason I hope SACD doesn't die is the availability of surround.