Jump to content

Digital vs analog


whatever55

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

This was the original poster's original question:

Thoughts on a digital crossover vs analog crossover affecting sound.

I
think CASK gave a direct answer to this, that other then Rigma and Dean
G, he wasn't aware of anyone being able to tell the difference between
music through a a digital crossover and an analog crossover. I listened
to Jubilees through Rigma's analog crossovers, with 300b tube amps, as compared to digital crossovers, both Crown amps with builtin crossovers and a DX38 with solid state amplification, and I much prefered the sound of rigma's system. I wish I had a pair of his crossovers but I don't have the technical know how to build them. I might add that the source for all of these comparisons was a CD player that cost under $100.00. We may have stuck in a better CD player when we listened to Rigma's crossovers, but I don't recall as it has been so long ago. So I don't know if what I prefered about Rigma's system was the crossovers, the tube amplificatio, tube preamp, or if it was a combanation of all three. I would like to think that I have heard enough 300b tube systems that I can say that I think a lot of what I was hearing was in his amp and pre-amp and only a small amount was attributable to the crossovers, but that is pure speculation.

I have never had the opportunity to listen to an identical set up with the only difference being the crossovers, digital vs. analog. I think in a very pure analog system, if you are one of those that can tell the difference between a CD and a LP being played then you might be able to notice the difference between an analog crossover vs. a digital one. I generally prefer the sound of analog in two track listening, especially prerecorded high quality tape, but I don't believe that the digital crossovers take away from the analog "warmth" that most people prefer when they say they have a preference.

I too would be curious as to what others think, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, what, if any, real listening difference there is between digital and analog crossovers. That is same analog source, same preamp, same amp, etc., etc.

As to all of the other comments on digital vs. analog in general, it is never going to be solved here but here are a few comments in response to what some others have said.

As far as quotes, my favorite on digital vs. analog came from a recording artist, with superior hearing due to his disability, who owned his own state of the art recording studio called RPM. He said this:

“I have to tell you man. In listening to sound, I guess what I’m after
is the closest thing that I can get to reality. Now, I know it’s not
going to be reality, cause the thing gotta go through wires and gotta go
through filters and this and that. I understand all that. But what I
really like is to get as close to the natural sound of the instruments
as possible. That’s why I like analog as opposed to digital. Because I
don’t give a s**t what anybody tells you man, I know what you guys are
going to tell me…’Oh yeah, but it’s clean Ray!’ Well it’s clean but it
don’t got no balls!!!” – 1999 interview with Ray Charles by Michael
Hobson of Classic Records

As far as tape to tape transfer distortion, it has really been a non-issue since the time of 1" tape and beyond. If you read Recording the Beatles by Kevin Ryan or Emerick"s, Here There And Everywhere, you will see that The Beatles' first two lp's were recorded on two track 1/4" tape, with tracks bounced up and down sometimes in excess of 50 times. What EMI's speciality was at the time was to be able to bounce tracks and overdub numerous times with a minimal amout of noise and in such a way that it greatly exceeded the noise floor. By the era of the 70's with multitrack recorders, and tapes capable of being saturated at 9+ db without distortion the issue of distortion, degradation, etc. from going from the original tracking tape all the way to the mastering tape was a non-issue. It can't be heard with good equipment and proper recording techniques.

Here is a Youtube video of Bernie Grundman, whom everyone should have heard of, talking about mastering and that he wants the original tracking hardrive iwhenever possible because a copy, in any form, DVD, CD, degrades the sound. This seemed odd to me, since digital should be the same regardless if it is the original hardrive, a copy of that HD, a DVD, or a CD. However, I have seen him speak on this several times and he is very strong in his view that a copy of the HD results in degraded sound. The AES position on this, discussed below, supports his conclusion. They say deliever the original tracking HDD in Broadcase Wave format in a protective padded case.

For a another good discussion about digital vs. analog in recording and mastering here is a youtube clip from Greg Calbi who should need no introduction either. I believe this is the consensus you will find in the recording industry today, there are advantages and disadvantages to both digital and analog and you really need to see what is going to work best for the project you are doing.

Both of those youtube videos were part of the ArtistsHouseMusic project and for those who are really interested in accurate information about in digital vs.analog, at the RECORDING/MIXING/MASTERING stage, by people who really do this for a living and are considered to be the top in the industry, there are a number of videos worth looking at as part of the 2,000 videos they have on file. The above two are a couple of good examples of what you can find there.

For an excellent discussion of the advantages of digital and analog, with compairsons YOU CAN LISTEN TO, between the tape and digital recordings here is a link.

http://recordinghacks.com/2013/01/26/analog-tape-vs-digital/

As this article suggests, even today in the digital age and with all of the advantages of Pro Tools, a great many engineers will record, at a minimum, drums to tape, because digital just cannot capture it the way tape does. This is called hybrid recording, the drums are recorded to tape and then put into Pro Tools as a digital track. This is even done directly through CLASP (closed loop analog signal
processor). There have been plugins created for Pro Tools to try and duplicate the sound of drums recorded on tape, but in reading what industry professionals have to say, these plugin have all come up short and so a great many recordings being done today use a hybrid approach.

Here is yet again another video from Music industry giant Joe Galante, former President of Sony/BMG on "Why CLASP with analog tape is so important" for record labels and
music artists today. This is hybrid recording, using both digital and analog technology, using the advantages of each.

Here is a 2010 article from Mix Magazine, one of the leading US Publications on the technical aspects of the recording industry, discussing with four current recording engineers why they prefer tape/analog, and how they are using both Pro Tools and tape.

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/analog_tape_back//index.html

The latest greatest thing in digital recording is backing up the hardrives. Several recording companies have run into problems with their high dollar digital recordings, which were done on hard drives, being damaged, or lost all together because of frozen hard drives and other problems. This has become enough of a problem that AES had to come up with a standard and issue a position paper for the standards for delivering digital and analog media to the owner (record company) of the masters, along with the number and type of safeties and the format of the audio (Broadcase Wave File format, "flattened"). The preferred backup/safetie for a hard disk drive is TAPE. Not a CD, not a DVD, but TAPE.

Some of the comments I saw in this thread about digital vs. analog go back to the old, never settled, discussion about which is better a cd or an lp. However, some of the comments about analog/tape didn't track with what the current state of recording has been over the last 10+ years. That is, while digital has a number of advantages in terms of changing sound, it has limitations. I think Joe Galante's discussion in his video covers this best.

On the other hand, the comments about preferences of analog over digital were someone confusing because they did not specify what recordings they were talking about. I think it was a good idea for Mike L to ask what the recordings were people were referring to when making comparisons. Any recording made from at least the early 90s is probably digital in some respect so I assume when people are comparing a analog recording (SPARS AAA) recording to a CD (which of course is either the same material in either AAD, ADD, DDD or DAD. Those would be the only two things you could compare really, or are people saying that a digitally recorded LP/Vinyl sounds better then a CD assuming both have the same bit and sampeling rates? Does anyone have a CD recorded (not remastered, or reissued) after say 1995 with a SPARS Code that isn't ADD if not DDD? I can't tell from some of the comments if people are saying they can tell the difference between (or prefer) a recording that was recorded onto tape and then digitally mixed and mastered from one that was digitally recorded.

I generally listen to music that was made pre 1980s, and I would say, generally, my order of preference is:

1. Prerecorded Reel to Reel tape, if issued

2. LP, subject to multiple versions, issues, etc.

3. SACD (many remastered versions have various tracks, for example, Pet Sounds, has original Mono, real stereo for the first time, etc.)

I think I only have on DVD-A and so cannot really comment on that.

I would say for the older stuff, pre-digital era, I would agree with those who prefer the analog version. However, anything recorded since 1995 that was recorded digitally, (first letter in the SPARS Code), is there really going to be a difference if it ends up on vinyl at some point?

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Vinyl played through an excellent tube preamp to digital xover to 300B SET amps to bi amped Jubilee is much closer.

In my post above I was wondering how much of what I heard through Rigma's system was the preamp/amp vs the analog crossover. I thought it was the best sound I heard compared the solid state amps and digital crossovers but was thinking what I was liking was mostly the great pre/amp (even the brand of tubes was top notch) as opposed to the crossovers, which I felt were only making a minor difference. If I am understanding you correctly in the quote above you would agree with that?

To follow up on that, what would you say would be more of an improvement on the Jubes, TAD drivers or going to analog crossovers?

Thanks

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently in favor of keeping the signal in the digital domain all the way

I agree with your sentiment here. I even tried using my Mac mini as the complete digital processor handling the crossover and eq using a multichannel DAC feeding power amps. It worked well enough that I will go back to that when I have enough time to research multi channel audio interfaces, because the analog output stage is where sound quality can be negatively impacted enough to offset the benefits of the all digital front end. And while I also believe as Rigma does that simple analog path for analog source material is better, i even tried used the mac as the RIAA curve correction device and got fantastic results playing vinyl.

BTW Jack White here in Nashville is recording, mastering and cutting new vinyl in an all analog setup. While I haven't heard the records, some who have heard them have been impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that to say, I don't buy the argument that "volume wars" is entirely a bad thing. Bad for you and me? In many ways yes, but sometimes I'm thankful for it. Quite honestly, I don't enjoy most of the music that benefits from a "realistic live sound" - I can definitely appreciate it, but if I want to hear that live sound, then I'll go to a live acoustic concert - and I get to do tons of that. For me, the recorded media becomes a world where we get to hear things that would otherwise never exist. For some reason, that's incredibly applauded in the painting world - but the "audiophile" crowd screams lack of fidelity when that happens...

This and the rest of your post is spot on. Nicely said!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No arguments here. In fact, I'm currently in favor of keeping the signal in the digital domain all the way from the disk player until it needs to come out of the preamp output terminal (including digital loudspeaker crossover processing) or even the power amp output terminal (i.e., via an integrated amplifier with crossover processing). I think that Art (artto) has a unit that effectively does that and he is singing the praises of that unit, the name of which escapes me presently, but IIRC this is a two-channel-only unit.

It's difficult to do 5.1 or 7.1 in the analog-only domain Indifferent - and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to go there if I could. Two-channel has become the sole application domain for analog-only source material (e.g., vinyl), and the new analog recordings are, as I understand it, derived from digital "masters".

Chris

P.S. Hey Marion, what were the last dozen recordings that you've listened to?

I don't remember 12 but here are the latest I recall: All LPs.

Lightnin Hopkins - Lightnin - 1960

Ben Webster - At The Renissance - 1960

Gene Ammons - Boss Tenor - 1960

Dave Brubeck - Time Out - 1959

Coleman Hawkins - The Hawk Relaxes - 1961

Buddy Guy & Junior Wells - Going Back To Acoustic - 1981

Ray Brown - Soular Energy - 1984

Van Morrison - Moon Dance - 1970

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vinyl played through an excellent tube preamp to digital xover to 300B SET amps to bi amped Jubilee is much closer.

In my post above I was wondering how much of what I heard through Rigma's system was the preamp/amp vs the analog crossover. I thought it was the best sound I heard compared the solid state amps and digital crossovers but was thinking what I was liking was mostly the great pre/amp (even the brand of tubes was top notch) as opposed to the crossovers, which I felt were only making a minor difference. If I am understanding you correctly in the quote above you would agree with that?

To follow up on that, what would you say would be more of an improvement on the Jubes, TAD drivers or going to analog crossovers?

Thanks

Travis

Travis that is a tough one. Both were much better to my ears but if I had to make a choice it probably would be the TADs.

rigma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the thread i thought i might be able to put some 2c in, but looks like a lot has already been filled.

As it is known to me analog reached its limitations on improvements long time ago, i think there may be some new designs with LP but generally i think its peak was reached when SACD's were coming around.

Digital however is reaching new heights all the time and has plenty of room to surpass analog, as it was greatly put by one person "The best digital would be better than the best analog".

Digital to analog chips are not perfect in anyway, they suffer limitations in all various architecture designs and are improving all the time. Take a look at the sigma delta chips, very ground breaking stuff and just trying to understand how they work is beyond most peoples understanding. This is the heart of digital IMO.

DSD is something completely on another level that is to most people a analog killer, however i think it's just the increased sample rate capability's that make it stand out and the highest PCM sample rate would be exactly the same SQ output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The best digital would be better than the best analog"

Would it be better than 30 i.p.s. 1/2 track or wider recording tape? How would it compare to full coat 35mm magnetic film at whatever speed it ran (22 i.p.s.?) ?

The current Stereophile (May 2013) has two letters that require greater understanding than I have, but are interesting nonetheless. One, on digital v.s. analog, by Dr. Shawn Hunt, disputes Art Dudley's contention that analog recording has virtually infinite resolution, and says that digital wins the resolution prize when estimated by the total difference between input and output, as measured by THD+Noise. The other, by Mark Riley, Chair of Physics at Florida State, mentions a study in which "Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle" ... "sometimes by more than tenfold." What do you guys think of all this? Is it on the mark, or off? How does it impact our discussion of digital vs analog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The other, by Mark Riley, Chair of Physics at Florida State, mentions a study in which "Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle" ... "sometimes by more than tenfold." What do you guys think of all this? Is it on the mark, or off? How does it impact our discussion of digital vs analog?

This has been cited recently as the reason why we have issues with mp3 (lossy) compression algorithms. I would assume that if you took a poll of contributors to this thread, probably most would agree that they don't like the sound of highly compresions or lower bit rate mp3's on their two channel or multichannel rigs. I find that the use of headphones while listening to compressed music determines what is preferred, however, the clinicians involved don't want to believe that and deny that there are any issues.

The time domain part of aural perception studies is one big area that has been overlooked relative to Fourier-based analyses, which have pervaded the subject matter since the earliest days of audio, i.e., FR graphs. I've also found that, just talking about time alignment of drivers and absorption/diffusion of reflected energy in-room are also big areas of development (and disagreement) that all point back to aural detection of time domain artifacts.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, one more comment or rather, observation on amplitude compression....

I've been to quite a few audiophile gatherings listening to music. One thing that has always caught my attention is this concept of volume creep. So many times a highly dynamic song will have a quiet section, and the person manning the volume control will almost always turn up the volume during the quiet passage if the music doesn't command the silence. Heck, I've seen people turn up the volume during intentional rests in classical pieces. Why are they doing this? And how is this any different than intentional amplitude compression? Wink Btw, I'm pretty sure nearly everyone here (including myself) has done this at some point. Being a sound engineer, I think I'm a bit more aware of it because half the time I'm looking to pull stuff back so that there is room in the system and people's ears for the loud parts to sound really loud. But that's a live sound environment where people want the dynamics. Anyways, my point is that even the majority of "audiophiles" prefer a 'loud' sound - especially Klipsch fans since the speakers can go way louder.

I would still argue the majority case wants less dynamics. I know I personally can't listen to a lot of lossless recordings on my phone at work because the quiet passages are too quiet. This is why I would love there to be an amplitude compressor with ballistics defined by the source (you can't get away with a compressor that works for all types of music).

All that to say, I don't buy the argument that "volume wars" is entirely a bad thing. Bad for you and me? In many ways yes, but sometimes I'm thankful for it. Quite honestly, I don't enjoy most of the music that benefits from a "realistic live sound" - I can definitely appreciate it, but if I want to hear that live sound, then I'll go to a live acoustic concert - and I get to do tons of that. For me, the recorded media becomes a world where we get to hear things that would otherwise never exist. For some reason, that's incredibly applauded in the painting world - but the "audiophile" crowd screams lack of fidelity when that happens...

I agree that music with a high dynamic range is best appreciated when listening attentively in a quiet environment. Nowadays, that is not the situation most of the time. The music is often background, and the environment is noisy, so dynamically compressed music works better a lot of the time. That doesn't apply to only the recording. One friend of mine found that symphonic music, like overtures, was useless as background music, because it was either too loud or too quiet most of the time.

As for intentional volume compression, I've often seen and done the opposite as well: intentional volume expansion. That's when you turn up the volume just before the loud part of the music starts, so it hits you extra hard.

With format choice, I've heard of some recent recordings that were released on vinyl, with an included password to download them in MP3 format, with no CD available. I think Beck released one a few years ago, but I can't seem to find any info about it right now. Maybe he changed his mind later and did release it on CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The other, by Mark Riley, Chair of Physics at Florida State, mentions a study in which "Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle" ... "sometimes by more than tenfold." What do you guys think of all this? Is it on the mark, or off? How does it impact our discussion of digital vs analog?

This has been cited recently as the reason why we have issues with mp3 (lossy) compression algorithms. I would assume that if you took a poll of contributors to this thread, probably most would agree that they don't like the sound of highly compresions or lower bit rate mp3's on their two channel or multichannel rigs. I find that the use of headphones while listening to compressed music determines what is preferred, however, the clinicians involved don't want to believe that and deny that there are any issues.

The time domain part of aural perception studies is one big area that has been overlooked relative to Fourier-based analyses, which have pervaded the subject matter since the earliest days of audio, i.e., FR graphs. I've also found that, just talking about time alignment of drivers and absorption/diffusion of reflected energy in-room are also big areas of development (and disagreement) that all point back to aural detection of time domain artifacts.

Chris

The only time I've heard music sound worse over speakers is when the acoustics are bad - either generated by the speakers themselves, or the room they're playing in. I'm really curious what technical factors you think are at play here. I actually use headphones for more critical listening than speakers because I have an easier time hearing the source itself. Maybe the clinicians have had similar experiences? Just think about the irony of the statement where you don't want some attribute that improves quality..... why wouldn't we try to exploit those principals? I'm not sure it necessitates a trade off, but I'm willing to believe there is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That statement is why I like to keep the signal chain analog and very simple.

What's simple about using a voltage to guide cutting a groove to wiggle a needle to wiggle a coil that requires a dramatic EQ curve to compensate for?

That, to me, sounds like a very complicated process.

If we're going to talk about the echelon of analog, then I think we need to be talking about reel to reel...

Actually that does not sound complicated to me at all, unlike turning that squiggly music into Xs & 0s then back again.[6]

rigma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That statement is why I like to keep the signal chain analog and very simple.

What's
simple about using a voltage to guide cutting a groove to wiggle a
needle to wiggle a coil that requires a dramatic EQ curve to compensate
for?

That, to me, sounds like a very complicated process.

If we're going to talk about the echelon of analog, then I think we need to be talking about reel to reel...

Actually that does not sound complicated to me at all, unlike turning that squiggly music into Xs & 0s then back again.Devil

rigma

To me, a simple signal chain involves the least number of transducers....

The vinyl route typically goes through about 6 transducers (Voltage
to Magnetic Tape, Magnetic Tape to Voltage, Voltage to Cutter Motion,
Cutter Motion to Platter Groove, Platter Groove to Needle Motion, Needle
Motion to Voltage).

An ideal analog tape route goes through 4 (voltage to magnetic tape,
magnetic tape to voltage, voltage to magnetic tape, magnetic tape to
voltage) - unless listening to the master tape.

An ideal digital route would go through 2 (voltage to digital, digital to voltage).

Putting
that into perspective, there is no peer reviewed documentation showing
that someone can blindly identify the artifacts of going into and out of
the digital domain. On the flip side, it is extremely easy to identify
the difference between vinyl and analog tape.

I would
actually love it if someone could prove that they can hear an A/D D/A
stage inline with the signal path. Are you saying you could? I would
gladly put together the gear and fly down there so you can make the
comparison in your own listening environment. But there's gotta be some
upside for me when you don't pass the double blind test [;)][:P]

Btw, putting the objectivity aside... I can totally understand how many people could prefer their "all analog" vinyl
based systems. And in fact, I would probably even put together a system
like that for someone that I thought fell into that category. But this
is strictly an issue of aesthetic preference - it just gets mixed up
with words of "fidelity" and "realism" or whatever and I think it is
important to maintain the integrity of those definitions rather than
bending it all the time.

I wonder if Blackmore's Night does anything on vinyl? They've been cranking out album after album of awesome music... (if you like a modern take on Medieval Gaelic music).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On dynamics, why not offer a full dynamic range version of each disk for audiophiles or people who like to hear music the way it was written, as interpreted by the artists?

Or, just make all disks full dynamics -- many pre-amp/processors and some receivers offer a dynamic range compression choice for those late nights in an apartment with paper thin walls and family or neighbors who are sensitive, but I don't think any offer dynamic range expansion ... and back in the day when dynamic range expansion devices for the home were common, none of them were exactly distortion free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On dynamics, why not offer a full dynamic range version of each disk for audiophiles or people who like to hear music the way it was written, as interpreted by the artists?

Or, just make all disks full dynamics -- many pre-amp/processors and some receivers offer a dynamic range compression choice for those late nights in an apartment with paper thin walls and family or neighbors who are sensitive, but I don't think any offer dynamic range expansion ... and back in the day when dynamic range expansion devices for the home were common, none of them were exactly distortion free.

+1 [Y]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Blackmore's Night does anything on vinyl? They've been cranking out album after album of awesome music... (if you like a modern take on Medieval Gaelic music).

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=Blackmore%27s+Night&sort=year&order=asc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On dynamics, why not offer a full dynamic range version of each disk for audiophiles or people who like to hear music the way it was written, as interpreted by the artists?

Or, just make all disks full dynamics -- many pre-amp/processors and some receivers offer a dynamic range compression choice for those late nights in an apartment with paper thin walls and family or neighbors who are sensitive, but I don't think any offer dynamic range expansion ... and back in the day when dynamic range expansion devices for the home were common, none of them were exactly distortion free.

This sounds great in theory, but it's not that simple, sometimes the artists get involved who cant hear very well due to age, or too much loud music or may I say taste, and they control the recording, or part of the art of their music, involves many harsh transients and distortion... which rarely work well in most dynamic playback systems that I have heard. I watched george harrison once with his son on the tele, he was trying to help his son with a recording. He went to the eq and did a reverse smiley with it, and thought it sounded great...he was so happy with himself and he certainly had the right, but to some peoples ears it might not sound that good. Then there are the engineers who put this stuff together, I was once in a recording studio where the band beck had recorded. it was a small studio, they didnt even know their "control monitors" were blown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your interpretation is?

Same as yours, I'm sure. [:)] I'm looking at the DR Database a bit more closely as you can see here: "Loudness War" and the Dynamic Range (DR) Database - some observations.

As I look more closely, the overall picture gets much less attractive from the standpoint of what the big record industry has been doing since ~1985. I also now know why Roy uses the music that he does for auditioning speakers. Look at the dynamic range of this CD's tracks: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=25133 relative to virtually any other CD or vinyl disk This particular CD has an extra 20 dB of dynamic range over the average CD sold today...which is an almost unbelievable increase.

I can also see why Doug Sax (Sheffield Lab) complained as much as he did in the 80s about how the industry adopted the CD format: the big record companies started to compress CD tracks almost immediately after the format's introduction, and apparently never used its added dynamic range capability. Then they followed up with compressing vinyl tracks, to the extent that they can make the music sound louder on vinyl without losing too much playing time on the vinyl disk surface.

I also know why digital is better for me: by what I'm listening to. For instance, the newest BD music disks (classical) by Naxos are really spectacular...apparently uncompressed. No tape hiss or pops/ticks of vinyl. Multichannel. I don't hear the same level of dynamic range even on multichannel SACDs.

I can see why many prefer to buy vinyl: they typically get just a little bit back in terms of dynamic range over compressed-to-the-hilt CDs--but not very much.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...