Digital vs analog

[Boxx]

So my question is this. What is the order of priority for material for reproduction? I tolerate a level of hiss in my fifties recordings because the music is so darn good.

I believe that many disagreements on this forum relate to differing priorities for reproduction.

1) Certainly for some, the answer is that they want a certain kind of reproduction that sounds like their childhood memories of a certain type of sound: for instance, some like a jukebox sound, car radio, or ear bud (no kidding, I've read some proclaiming that the sound improved once the music was passed through an iTunes mp3 encoder/decoder.Others like their recordings muffled by the use of cone-type direct radiator speakers so that they feel like they are at the back of a theater ("British" sound), or like the speakers that they had when they grew up in their childhood home.

2) For others, the sound of a touring band concert may be the goal, including the type of music typically played (usually loud in the midrange and perhaps higher bass).

3) Others may seek out the sound of some "audiophile" setup, which includes a certain willingness to forgo extreme dynamics and concert level performance in favor of "micro-detail" and soundstage, even surpassing real live performance soundstage.

4) Still others may prefer the look of the equipment over its performance...no kidding. For instance, large esoteric turntables/arms, glowing tubes, matched wood grains, etc.

5) Apparently a small minority desire realism in performance effects, including soundstage, real concert dynamics, freedom from noise on the recording medium, freedom from all kinds of distortion including especially modulation distortion, and a realism in the soundstage that you actually hear when you go to a live acoustic concert.

I would also add that the goal typically changes for individuals based on the type of music played and the environment it is played in.

This is actually a complex subject. I've found that my tastes aren't in the majority but are focused exclusively on the fifth point above, regardless of music type or environment.

I will also share that I've never been satisfied listening to music reproduced on home hi-fi systems and commercial systems since I was very young, since it didn't sound like the real thing: I spent many hours listening to real music of different kinds.

Chris

All points well taken Chris.... I feel very much connected to point 5.

[bracurrie]

3) Others may seek out the sound of some "audiophile" setup, which includes a certain willingness to forgo extreme dynamics and concert level performance in favor of "micro-detail" and soundstage, even surpassing real live performance soundstage.

This approach is really about the equipment more than the music. Home of the digital deniers. [:@]

5) Apparently a small minority desire realism in performance effects, including soundstage, real concert dynamics, freedom from noise on the recording medium, freedom from all kinds of distortion including especially modulation distortion, and a realism in the soundstage that you actually hear when you go to a live acoustic concert.

I would also add that the goal typically changes for individuals based on the type of music played and the environment it is played in.

This is actually a complex subject.

Yeah!! Realism. Freedom! Its not only complicated, its difficult to achieve and appreciate.[8-|]

When the sound quality is high from source to ear, I will take the time to listen carefully to most any new material. If its faulty I put off listening carefully until, as the result of hearing the material on an average system often a car stereo, I developed an appreciation for the music and I can then enjoy the music flaws and all.

[rigma]

5) Apparently a small minority desire realism in performance effects, including soundstage, real concert dynamics, freedom from noise on the recording medium, freedom from all kinds of distortion including especially modulation distortion, and a realism in the soundstage that you actually hear when you go to a live acoustic concert.

I would also add that the goal typically changes for individuals based on the type of music played and the environment it is played in.

This is actually a complex subject.

Yeah!! Realism. Freedom! Its not only complicated, its difficult to achieve and appreciate.

I keep hearing comments about surface noise such as clicks and pops. Most of my LPs are dead quite. I do run every one, even new LPs, through my Keith Monk cleaning machine prior to playing for the first time.

So if you have noise get a good cleaning machine and enjoy noise free LPs.

rigma

[bracurrie]

So if you have noise get a good cleaning machine and enjoy noise free LPs.

Great point.[Y] I have several that are noise free, but most have been through the proverbial wringer.

If its digital there is no need. But then it's digital and that's a problem, I suppose.

[garyrc]

5) Apparently a small minority desire realism in performance effects, including soundstage, real concert dynamics, freedom from noise on the recording medium, freedom from all kinds of distortion including especially modulation distortion, and a realism in the soundstage that you actually hear when you go to a live acoustic concert.

Although I don't mind tape hiss, I'm a Number Fiver, having
played in orchestras and having listened to much live music of many
kinds. My chief complaint is when a piece of music that would always be
"blood stirring" (PWK's term) when heard live is bland and lifeless on disk.

As to detail, there is great detail, but not necessarily great precision
of placement ("imaging") when listening live. Sometimes there is a
marvelously diffuse sound that will give way to localization when a
trumpet, triangle, or other such is heard from. As what's-his-name (the
founder of Stereophile) said, reproduced music should trigger our musical gestalt.

[Chris A]

I keep hearing comments about surface noise such as clicks and pops. Most of my LPs are dead quite. I do run every one, even new LPs, through my Keith Monk cleaning machine prior to playing for the first time...So if you have noise get a good cleaning machine and enjoy noise free LPs.

from http://audio-restoration.com/monks5.php:

"Delivered in USA, clear of US Customs, FOB Buffalo New York,

USA Dollars: $4,950.00"

BTW: $5K buys a lot of music - why put all that into a "record cleaning machine"? I would guess that is a lot for speakers for many people, much less a "record cleaning machine".

My optical disc resurfacing machine (which is high dollar) went for $120 (USD).

Chris

[Don Richard]

I keep hearing comments about surface noise such as clicks and pops. Most of my LPs are dead quite. I do run every one, even new LPs, through my Keith Monk cleaning machine prior to playing for the first time...So if you have noise get a good cleaning machine and enjoy noise free LPs.

BTW: $5K buys a lot of music - why put all that into a "record cleaning machine"? I would guess that is a lot for speakers for many people, much less a "record cleaning machine".

And "The Machine" won't do anything for hiss from the master tape that the record was made from.

[Mike Lindsey]

I'm with Rigma on this one! If you buy the vinyl new, and are the only one that has played the lp's, there is a pretty good chance it will be 99% quiet. If buying used you get what you pay for. I also clean every LP on my Nitty Gritty Mini Pro ($1000) record cleaner prior to it's first use, and that certainly helps. Most of the new LP's being pressed today are a lot quieter than vinyl from yesteryear. They also cost a lot more though ($25 - $50).

Mike

[bracurrie]

See also this enlightening, yet entertaining video: http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

If you thought the first one was entertaining try the second. http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

[Chris A]

I also clean every LP on my Nitty Gritty Mini Pro ($1000) record cleaner prior to it's first use, and that certainly helps. Most of the new LP's being pressed today are a lot quieter than vinyl from yesteryear. They also cost a lot more though ($25 - $50).

Thanks for that - I agree that one needs some method to clean vinyl. I have quite a few old LPs that I had to use the Spin Clean on - and it helped some of them a bit.

I find that old, worn-out disks are easier to replace most of the time, IMHO. I also have used isopropyl alcohol as a more robust cleaning fluid on stubborn dirt, as I find that the Spin Clean is a fairly messy cleaning method, and can leave residual noise, IMHE. I also find that doing batch cleaning of disks is the only way that I use the Spin Clean. That means that I've used it once on my collection, it being so inconvenient to use.

Based on a single data point, I agree with your assessment of the new vinyl disks. The new LP is much higher quality than typical LPs from the early 1980s--with the notable exception of Philips, DG, Decca, Telarc, Archiv, etc., and Sheffield Lab DTDs. I also agree about the prices. The disk that I bought recently is much more dynamic than the CD (Confessions on a Dance Floor). If I am buying pop music created within the last 20-25 years, I will look at available LPs for recording dynamics, and make my buying decision based on this from now on.

Chris

[Chris A]

See also this enlightening, yet entertaining video: http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

If you thought the first one was entertaining try the second. http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Both of these videos have some very impressive examples to illustrate their points - the some of the best that I've seen/heard.

What is interesting to me is the lack of knowledge on use of digital techniques, and why they are superior to their equivalent analog alternatives. This argument was settled more than three decades ago. The problem of course is the recording industry's abuse of the digital audio medium to do something that is really inconceivable: to squash the dynamics of the music in order to get something "louder" (...and now, which with autogain being deployed to all devices and to radio/TV, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I still shake my head in disbelief.) I don't trust these folks as far as I can throw them.

Perhaps there is a special place for these people that have abused the medium when they pass (in a biblical sense), maybe they'll have to listen to what they did to the music for eternity. (I can, at least, ponder the thought...)

Chris

[bracurrie]

Perhaps there is a special place for these people that have abused the medium when they pass (in a biblical sense), maybe they'll have to listen to what they did to the music for eternity. (I can, at least, ponder the thought...)

To quote a famous Arkansas politician who recently when under pressure to explain her actions exclaimed "What difference does it make?"

What is interesting to me is the lack of knowledge on use of digital techniques, and why they are superior to their equivalent analog alternatives.

I propose a forum where knowledge on who is and who isn't taking advantage of what state of the art tech offers to create recordings both digital and analog that are worthy of the "Klipsch Dynamic" badge of honor. What a great way for Klipsch to further their brand. Who knows how many uninformed may inquire, learn and then appreciate what increased dynamics mean. All the while recognizing that Klipsch is the speaker company that takes quality seriously enough. The more number 5s we have the better.

Unfortunatly as we all know the vast majority of the public doesn't understand this issue and most treat music as a background element that benefits from "squashon"(my proposed new term for dynamic compression applied to a music recording). The producers should be interested to serve the market for higher dynamic recordings. This audience is more price elastic so there are more profits here.

Amy, if you are reading this please pass it along to the powers at corporate. There is an opening here to set Klipsch apart in the market.

Now a thread tie in: Most if not all analog since 19?? exists in a digital form at some point. Digital done right is indistiquishable from clean analog. Where digital goes wrong is when the computer process that handles the data (transports in players) takes shortcuts before handing the stream to the DAC, the DAC chipset itself takes shortcuts (its remarkable to read DAC chipset reviews), or the backend analog signal is handled poorly.

I just intergreated an Apogee Duet 2 that was recommended by engineers familiar with the sound quality of its analog output. To my ear its wonderful. Bad digital sound ok, good digital sounds fantastic. I no longer use my SP6b preamp and miniDSP so now I have only one DAC in the chain and the Apogee Duet 2 is very quiet at idle compared to the miniDSP.

I took my TT and hooked it to the input side, applied RIAA correction in software via Pure Vinyl and now I can enjoy those recordings without handling the vinyl. I have quite a few records that either do not exist digital or if they do suffer from "squashon". For those of you that have good digital rigs I would be willing to share a sample. It's that good. IMO

[Quiet_Hollow]

For those of you that have good digital rigs I would be willing to share a sample. It's that good. IMO

I'll bite. Shoot me an email with it attached, por favor.

[DizRotus]

bracurrie and Quiet Hollow said,

"See also this enlightening, yet entertaining video: http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

If you thought the first one was entertaining try the second. http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml"

Yikes!

That "Monty" Montgomery guy is very scary, what with all that math, science, engineering background, test equipment and data. Next he'll be trying to debunk my strongly held beliefs that Earth is flat and the center of the Uiniverse. It's just too frightening.

[bracurrie]

Yikes!

That "Monty" Montgomery guy is very scary, what with all that math, science, engineering background, test equipment and data. Next he'll be trying to debunk my strongly held beliefs that Earth is flat and the center of the Uiniverse. It's just too frightening.

Yeah. Reality bites. As long as I cannot understand it, it can't be true.[]

[bracurrie]

Yikes!

That "Monty" Montgomery guy is very scary, what with all that math, science, engineering background, test equipment and data. Next he'll be trying to debunk my strongly held beliefs that Earth is flat and the center of the Uiniverse. It's just too frightening.

Yeah. Reality bites. As long as I cannot understand it, it can't be true.[]

[Chris A]

Now a thread tie in: Most if not all analog since 19?? exists in a digital form at some point. Digital done right is indistiguishable from clean analog. Where digital goes wrong is when the computer process that handles the data (transports in players) takes shortcuts before handing the stream to the DAC, the DAC chipset itself takes shortcuts (its remarkable to read DAC chipset reviews), or the backend analog signal is handled poorly.

I just integrated an Apogee Duet 2 that was recommended by engineers familiar with the sound quality of its analog output. To my ear its wonderful. Bad digital sound ok, good digital sounds fantastic. I no longer use my SP6b preamp and miniDSP, so now I have only one DAC in the chain and the Apogee Duet 2 is very quiet at idle compared to the miniDSP.

I took my TT and hooked it to the input side, applied RIAA correction in software via Pure Vinyl and now I can enjoy those recordings without handling the vinyl. I have quite a few records that either do not exist digitally, or if they do, suffer from "squashon". For those of you that have good digital rigs I would be willing to share a sample. It's that good, IMO.

Here are some personally influencing words that I found a few years ago on this subject (taken from this source):

"Exploding the analog-to-digital myth:

LP Records,

for the most part, have a dynamic range of about 60db with a few exceptions, while a CD's dynamic range is 90db. I've talked to and heard from many audiophiles who believe that records and analog tape does not transfer well to digital. BULL COOKIES!!

It has a lot to do with what software and hardware is used, who's doing the mastering, as well as your playback equipment. 44.1kHz 16 bit resolution is sufficient for most audio, and will exceed an analog source as far as resolution is concerned. I have proven this time and again by example.

If I record an LP or analog tape to digital audio, I make sure that there is no difference between the source and the target; no coloring in the sound, no loss of resolution, no diminished dynamics, no loss of fast transients, or twists in the frequency spectrum. I usually get an improved depth-of field, wider soundstage, and greater detail.

I've played vinyl and CDs simultaneously in A-B comparisons for some of the best ears that I know, and they can't tell the difference, or much to their chagrin, identify the CD as being the vinyl! If I record using tube gain stages for the phono, the digital capture gets all that nice warm tube-ness, and the CD I output will sound identical.

Digital is a truly blank canvas, and if you want coloration, you'll have to add it.

I have several gain stages (pre-amp) that I use, and interface to an M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496 internal audio card. Any processors or noise reduction devices are all software based. I am currently creating DVD audio discs from my LPs recorded at 96kHz 24bit! Astounding quality!"

Chris

[bracurrie]

Here are some personally influencing words that I found a few years ago on this subject (taken from this source):

"Exploding the analog-to-digital myth:

Chris,

Thanks. I read that a while back myself but had forgotten about it. Quite a testimony. What's interesting to me is that if the analog is treated badly coming out of the DAC process then digital gets the rap unfairly. The audio interface/DAC has to perform well on the analog side.

So in my previous setup you had digital processed by the MAC sent to the DAC via S/PDIF then from the DAC via unbalanced connections, then switched and processed in analog by the pre-amp (mine wasn't a line level switching pre-amp) the connected to the miniDSP via unblanced connection. The miniDSP converted the analog to digital (ADC) processed the stream applying crossover and EQ before converting the two streams back to analog that was then sent to the pair of stereo amps via unbalanced connection. The outcome was ok, but now with the crossover and EQ applied in the MAC and sent to the 4 channel audio interface/DAC connected to the pair of amps it is much simpler and really does sound much better.

BTW just spent $13 on http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/product.php?pid=459 . Recorded in 1956, released on tape, encoded by High Def Tape Transfers it has almost 30db of dynamic range. The orchestra sounds like its in the room. Stunning! They have 4 days left on their spring sale.

[Chris A]

What's interesting to me is that if the analog is treated badly coming out of the DAC process then digital gets the rap unfairly. The audio interface/DAC has to perform well on the analog side.

Exactly.

BTW just spent $13 on http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/product.php?pid=459 . Recorded in 1956, released on tape, encoded by High Def Tape Transfers it has almost 30db of dynamic range. The orchestra sounds like its in the room. Stunning! They have 4 days left on their spring sale

Thanks for the heads up - I'll take a look.

Chris

[Chris A]

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3171

...starting at the paragraph just above the figure.

This is in reference toward the bottom of this posting: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/143061-digital-vs-analog/page-5#entry1622227 in this thread, which I find that I cannot reply directly to now.

Must be another "feature" of the forum.

Chris