Is... Analog Dead?

[thebes]

I think a lot of it has to do with one’s personal experiences, and therefore, preferences. For instance, a lot of “younger” (I’m 62) folks grew up in the “digital age”. What’s their point of reference? It’s most likely iTunes (acc file format) or MP3, both are compressed “lossy” audio formats that quite frankly, I don’t like to listen to. It’s the modern version of the 45 rpm single for my age group. I don’t think anyone would argue that the sound from a 45 rpm single from the 60’s is superior and compelling, compared to MP3 regardless of what it’s played through, even though it’s (the 45) technologically the same thing as an LP. In fact, the higher rotation speed should theoretically provide better fidelity, but it doesn’t. Why is that?

 

Back in the day, LP was not considered the “highest fidelity” media. Analog tape was king, preferably at 30 inches per second. It was a very expensive proposition, and still is. No “serious” audiophile would be without a reel to reel tape deck that could play at least 15 inch per second tapes. And like records, it still has its proponents.

 

Ironically, analog tape has many of the same problems as LP & turntables. They are just manifested differently.

 

Much of the debate today is the same. Tubes verses transistors, analog verses digital, etc. The fact of the matter is very few of us have ever had their “ears” on a truly superior analog or digital system. And by that I mean everything, from the recording to the listening room. And even fewer have extensive experience recording live acoustical performances in both (or all?) formats. Many (most?) of today’s audiophiles haven’t even been to a live (non-amplified) music performance, at least not in a long time or frequently, or play a musical instrument. What’s their point of reference?

 

It’s only in the last 1.5 years that I have gone to completely digital throughput. And by that I mean, there isn’t even any spinning disc, like an SACD player or hard disk drive. Lossless high resolution sound files are played directly from RAM in the computer, transmitted digitally without format or sampling conversion via HDMI (not asynchronous USB) with no error correction required, to a direct digital feedback amplifier which processes everything, volume, tone control, EQ, crossovers, distortion cancellation, etc. completely in the digital domain at 108MHz/35 bit PWM. This is the one and only (upsampling) digital conversion in the signal path. No analog anything anywhere in the signal path. I’m also one of the lucky ones who happen to have many years worth of my own digital (and analog) recordings of a local chorale with orchestra or band accompaniment performing in an acoustical space which is regionally acknowledged for its fine acoustics as well as the studio recordings of the bands I’ve played in. And as many of you know, I have an excellent dedicated acoustically tuned listening room/studio.

 

That being said, I think for most people it all boils down to their personal preferences for certain kinds of sounds and distortions (or lack of it). For instance, I really don’t like the sound of the high notes of violins, piccolo, or even alto sopranos. They sound edgy, strident. It bothers my ears. I’m a bass player (ha!). On the other extreme I’ve heard some audiophiles say with great aplomb how they like “the warm fuzzy sound of tubes”. A far as records go, I can’t tell you how many LP’s I’ve taken back to the record store because of ticks, pops and excessive surface noise, skips, occasionally even on the most expensive audiophile discs.

 

The other thing I’ve discovered, is that as the playback “system” (the recording, playback equipment & room) gets dialed in better and better, the differences between analog and digital, tape or LP, or even the recordings themselves, gets to be less & and less. I now find that more recordings are “acceptable” ~ listenable and enjoyable. Whereas in the past long ago, my system was obviously biased, it sounded much better with some recordings while most of them didn’t sound nearly as good and caused me to avoid listening to them.

 

How do we “extract” the “sound” from a record anyway? Without even considering all the things that go into actually making the record, what are we trying to do? What we have is a nearly microscopic polished stone, attached to one end of a (usually) metal cantilever, which is suspended by a tiny rubber grommet. At the opposite end of this cantilever we have either a pair of tiny magnets or coils of wire, both of which have much more mass than the stone stylus. This little device, the pickup, is attached to one end of a nine to twelve inch arm usually made of a lightweight metal, which is balanced on some bearings. At the opposite end of this arm are heavy weights for balancing the whole apparatus. There is also a weight or spring-loaded component to compensate for the arm’s natural tendency to skate towards the center of a spinning disk. Then, we spin this disk at 7-1/2 inches per second, while dragging the nearly microscopic stone through a pressed plastic groove, which is most likely at least the 10,000^th copy pressed from the mother production disk stamper, wriggling the cantilever back and forth as well as up and down, while having to move the entire mass of the pickup, arm, overcome its frictional components, and then amplify the minute electrical signal created by this device 8,000 times and get stereo (or even 4 channel) playback from the single groove! It’s a wonder we get anything resembling “fidelity” at all from this little miracle. If records and record players didn't exist, and someone came up and told me about this new invention as described above, and what kind of fidelity it could reproduce, I’d think they were nuts. Of course the same argument could be said for reading 1's and 0's with a magnetic head or beam of light from a variable speed spinning disk, or solid state memory at MHz speeds and turning it into something resembling the original waveform.

 

For what it’s worth, in the above dissertation I've left out most of the other things that are inherently problematic in record playback as it exists today.

 

There is something to be said however for the “pressed plastic groove”. It is of course, a physical "analog" representation of the actual waveform, albeit probably compressed and with reverse equalization compensation applied. And quite frankly, that’s all it has to be. It’s the getting from point A to point Z that is astonishing. If anything, it demonstrates how tolerant the ear/brain system is of distortion.

 

 

FWIW, my all-digital throughput signal chain is composed of Toshiba Satellite C855-S5350 laptop, J River Media Center as the music server, using synchronous  HDMI output to HDMI input of NAD C390DD. The C390 utilizes the latest HDMI specification employing Audio Rate Control which enables the C390 as the master  clock for both the C390 and laptop thereby minimizing (virtually eliminating) digital jitter. Earlier versions of HDMI or components which do not utilize Audio Rate Control use the video sink for sychronization/clock timing. Obviously if no video signal is present, this presents a problem, resulting is much higher digital jitter than the best asynchronous USB systems .

 

The analog vinyl part of the system is a Linn Sondeck LP12, modified with Origin Live Advanced DC motor and outboard power supply upgrade, Moerch UP-4 tonearm, red arm tube wand, Decca Jubilee pickup, Audio Research SP6B to the analog input module of the NAD C390DD (or McIntosh MX135/MC7205, or Luxman MB3045, or Wright Sound Labs 3.5 Mono 2A3 SET).

I can agree with a lot of what you've written here and the obvious time and effort you took in composing it.  No one can doubt your dedication to achieving as close to perfection as you can in your own playback systems.  I've always enjoyed your sharing of knowledge over the years, as you've made your journey into all things audio.

 

I do think, though, that you are being a bit condescending in implying that those who enjoy vinyls haven't experienced sufficiently good systems to make valid comparisons and because we don't play an instrument we can't render an accurate judgement.  It's wrong, and given the depth of knowledge on this Forum, it's mostly not true. 

 

Come to think of it, some of the worse home stereos I've ever heard are in musicians homes. People who compose or sing music, the electronica and synth folks aside, are focused more on the analogue sound emanating from their own throats, instruments, fingers etc. They create and then study the effect through playback.  If they are any, good, or lucky, they get professional assistance with the actual recording via engineers, mastering technicians etc.

 

By the way you pick apart the tortuous path to the making of a piece of wax, yet seem to ignore the equally tortuous path to a final digital product and the inherent shortcomings in almost any aspect of the digital domain.

[thebes]

The question is... Is Analog Dead? Not yet, but it's circling the drain. Vinyl sales are at 6 million/year while CD sales are at 250 million/year, both for 2013. Digital downloads are more than double CD sales. Saying that digital dominates the marketplace is an understatement.

 

Those with a vinyl fetish are quick to point out that vinyl sales are up 600% since 2005. Still, 600% of near nothing is not much relative to the total annual sales of music. The total annual sales of all music purchases is over 1.8 billion/year.

.

Yup, new vinyls are not big moneymakers, but I suspect the secondary market for wax is probably larger than that of cd's or re-selling of digital downloads.  I know that I, and many others, buy many more used albums than new ones.

 

I don't know, but I would also suspect that just in the day of the 45 most sales were not for albums, but for singles, and that is almost certainly true for digital downloads today.

 

Finally, Don, I'm used to you getting my back when technical stuff comes up.  Fortunately in this rare instance of disagreement it saddens me to see that you are wrong.

 

However, should you still have a turntable, dust it off, give it a listen, and see what you think.

[nu2toobs]

I've been following this thread since it's inception.  I haven't posted here in ages, and my answer is...................No, analog isn't dead, but it's in ICU.  That said, it doesn't mean it's worse or better than Digital, but I listen to analog 99.9% of the time, so it's better too me.

 

Obligatory integral formula so people know I mean business

 

Edited October 11, 2014 by nu2toobs

[DrWho]

Haha, Thebes you're a riot! 

[Don Richard]

Yup, new vinyls are not big moneymakers, but I suspect the secondary market for wax is probably larger than that of cd's or re-selling of digital downloads.

 

Playing a record wears the vinyl causing, high frequency losses. A used record doesn't contain nearly the quality of sound that it had when new. Years ago Audio magazine ran tests that indicated playing a record a couple dozen times knocked the high freqs down to 12 kHz max. I confirmed for myself that a new record sounded much better than one that was several years old. When the highs are gone there is nothing that will bring them back. You may be able to wet play the record and extend it's life, but that's very messy.

 

I see lots of used CDs for sale and I am confident they will sound as good as when new, i.e. better than the same album on vinyl. And if the CD gets badly scratched it can be polished. Plus, I can play it in my car.

[thebes]

I do have to admit that everytime I try to play a vinyls in the car it doesn't sound very good. Talk about wow and flutter.

 

So where do I send the truck to gather up your collection of wax?

 

Since they are no good anymore, I'm willing to offer you 10 cents a dozen.

Edited October 15, 2014 by thebes

[Shakeydeal]

 

Yup, new vinyls are not big moneymakers, but I suspect the secondary market for wax is probably larger than that of cd's or re-selling of digital downloads.

 

Playing a record wears the vinyl causing, high frequency losses. A used record doesn't contain nearly the quality of sound that it had when new. Years ago Audio magazine ran tests that indicated playing a record a couple dozen times knocked the high freqs down to 12 kHz max. I confirmed for myself that a new record sounded much better than one that was several years old. When the highs are gone there is nothing that will bring them back. You may be able to wet play the record and extend it's life, but that's very messy.

 

I see lots of used CDs for sale and I am confident they will sound as good as when new, i.e. better than the same album on vinyl. And if the CD gets badly scratched it can be polished. Plus, I can play it in my car.

 

Well it looks like you convinced yourself that seedees are better. Bravo!

 

Shakey

[Don Richard]

So where do I send the truck to gather up your collection of wax? Since they are no good anymore, I'm willing to offer you 10 cents a dozen

 

They would be a lot of trouble to move. Now, if you wanted digital, I could just email them to you. At light speed, no less

[oldtimer]

Thebes you have to remember that artto is a bass player whos hero is roger waters.  Or someone by a similar name.

[geoffcb]

 

Yup, new vinyls are not big moneymakers, but I suspect the secondary market for wax is probably larger than that of cd's or re-selling of digital downloads.

 

Playing a record wears the vinyl causing, high frequency losses. A used record doesn't contain nearly the quality of sound that it had when new. Years ago Audio magazine ran tests that indicated playing a record a couple dozen times knocked the high freqs down to 12 kHz max. I confirmed for myself that a new record sounded much better than one that was several years old. When the highs are gone there is nothing that will bring them back. You may be able to wet play the record and extend its life, but that's very messy.

 

 

 

 

There are really too many variables to make this statement valid. It may be true in some cases, but it would take a scientific peer-reviewed investigation! Maybe with one of those Crosley  devices, but surely not with a Shibata stylus!

 

Geoff

[Don Richard]

 

 

Yup, new vinyls are not big moneymakers, but I suspect the secondary market for wax is probably larger than that of cd's or re-selling of digital downloads.

 

Playing a record wears the vinyl causing, high frequency losses. A used record doesn't contain nearly the quality of sound that it had when new. Years ago Audio magazine ran tests that indicated playing a record a couple dozen times knocked the high freqs down to 12 kHz max. I confirmed for myself that a new record sounded much better than one that was several years old. When the highs are gone there is nothing that will bring them back. You may be able to wet play the record and extend its life, but that's very messy.

 

 

 

 

There are really too many variables to make this statement valid. It may be true in some cases, but it would take a scientific peer-reviewed investigation! Maybe with one of those Crosley  devices, but surely not with a Shibata stylus!

 

Geoff

 

 

The tests Audio ran were properly done. Some of the cartridges used in the tests used Shibata styli - HF losses still occurred. It has to do with dirt and the vinyl material itself, with the dirt acting as an abrasive (it's harder than the vinyl so wear occurs).

[Shakeydeal]

Doesn't matter to me. I have 30 year old well played records that smoke their digital counterparts. It's the music that comes out the speakers that interests me, not a test.....

 

 

Shakey

[muel]

It may have already been said... the question is moot when considering music that has not been transferred from analog to digital.    Would anyone really argue that the music must have sucked and is worthless just because no business decides to make that transfer?  ...because they don't think it will make enough money?   I imagine there is not much of a market for Slim Whitman among the Martian population but I'd say there is music for everyone.  It would be nice if we could pass it on to subsequent generations.  Who knows... might even be used to save the planet some day

 

(I apologize if you haven't seen the movie, "Mars Attacks.")

 

If you want anything to survive you need to do all you can to not only preserve it but to transfer it to new mediums. Those mediums must be able to fully carry and replicate the content of those previous mediums.  I think digital is capable of that but I won't be throwing out my old albums anymore than I would suggest throwing out the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States just because we have them printed in books and plenty of digital pictures of them copied to CD.  Actually, I'd suggest we require it be tattooed to our politicians since they seem to have a hard time remembering... but that's another topic I suppose.

[Thaddeus Smith]

The underlying theme to all of these threads is people trying to convince other people that their preference is the best. It would be much more productive for us to argue about Artist vs. Artist or Album vs. Album (of the same artist) regardless of the medium each of us uses to hear it.

 

My first exposure to Doc Severinsen was through a horrible vinyl record - tons of pops and cracks and skips, and not even a proper album cover. But WOW, what an album!! I played the crap out of it because I enjoyed the music. I've since downloaded a copy of it for digital playback and it sounds different without all of the horrendous noise, but I still dig the music of the album itself.

 

http://www.allmusic.com/album/brass-on-ivory-mw0000262400

 

You guys have a wealth of music knowledge that gets lost and overshadowed by format wars. kids need to know about Hank Mobley and Jan Garbarek - not reel-to-reel superiority, stylus choices, inherent flaws of CD medium, or how crappy mp3's are. I strongly suggest that as you guys continue to get older you shift your focus from arguing the most granular details of a music format to creating a searchable history of music (both critique and praise).  

[muel]

I guess I didn't state my full point... a good transfer of vinyl to digital will carry with it all the vinyl goodness that you love.  Carefully store away that vinyl and playback your digital copy via a high quality DAC and I do not believe you will be disappointed with the results.  If you miss playing with vinyl you can always get it out again.  I suspect it would take some of you a LOOONG time to get through all your vinyl!

 

I love the conversations here that revolve around music and all that I have been introduced!  The more talk about the music and the artists the better!  

[Taz]

I know Vinyl is on a considerable up tick over the last couple years, perhaps based on Nostalgia... but with really great DSD, why choose an Analog source material?

 

Same reason some people like to drive 50 year old cars.  You can't really explain it in logical terms.  Some people just like it.  I've got boxes and more boxes of vinyl.  Can't tell you why any more then why I got the turntables.  Just seems to float my boat.

 

john 

[Bubo]

Quanitzation error and loudness wars argue against CDs for quality.

 

 

Older versions of CDs are actually more accurate.

 

As to vinyl vs CD take the music where you can find it.

 

$100 carts are fine, anlong with a quality turn table, vintage can be had for less than $100 plus a trip to the shop for a tune-up.

 

My vintage Mac and Yamaha gear have great phono sections, the Emotiva stand alone gets good reviews too for $200.

 

I have some spectacular sounding CDs, and plenty of not so great ones, Loudness wars had destroyed some great recording sessions.

 

There is also a lot of great old vinyl out there, I average around 60 cents an LP and I'm not even sure if they are still in print aka on CDs.

 

 As to streaming, someday......

[LarryC]

Doesn't matter to me. I have 30 year old well played records that smoke their digital counterparts. It's the music that comes out the speakers that interests me, not a test.....     Shakey

That's about where I'm at -- I for whatever reasons, I easily connect with the music itself from LPs and concert halls.  I don't hear it as easily or as frequently from CDs and DVDs.

[thebes]

 

Doesn't matter to me. I have 30 year old well played records that smoke their digital counterparts. It's the music that comes out the speakers that interests me, not a test.....     Shakey

That's about where I'm at -- I for whatever reasons, I easily connect with the music itself from LPs and concert halls.  I don't hear it as easily or as frequently from CDs and DVDs.

 

Larry I often think of you when I weigh in on these posts. I think you very much influenced me to listen to the music, not the medium, and when I did, I ended up coming down on the side of vinyl.

[thebes]

 

 

 

Older versions of CDs are actually more accurate.

 

Throughout this debate this potential heresy sneaks in.  It used to be accepted dogma on this Forum that the early cd's were, by-the-large, not very well done.  Please be sure this is not at all directed at you, but now the cd/streaming proponents here seem to say the early cd's did not suffer from the compression we see today. 

 

I'm sorry but the world still has little nostalgia for the good-old-days of cd's and with time , I really don't expect that to change.

Now with vinyls, you get nostalgia plus the wonderment of how satisfying, complete and accurate it sounds. Dynamics aren't to shabby either.

 

Now to me, aside from the distortion I can't stand, the newer cd's have much more detail then the early ones.  Overall they sound much better than most of the old ones. Not necessarily saying they are more accurate, nor that a lot of them have been compressed even worse than the earlier ones, only that the viewpoint form the zeros and oness guys have some burps in their arguments.