New question on Digital vs Analog

[Marvel]

I'm not trying to stir up the pot, and I have my own vague ideas about the subject but I have what I hope is an honest question.

First, I can listen to analog sources or digital sources and enjoy them both. I am not taking sides here.

The question is this. Who has listened to the Dire Straits album 'Brothers in Arms' using both playback technologies (vinyl and cd)?

Which did you prefer an why?

I ask this since the album was recorded digitally (multitrack Reel to Reel digital, Sony 48 track). I believe the sample rate on those machines was only 48Khz as well.

I only have a copy in vinyl, which is very pristine. It sound great to me, but as I said, either format will float my boat. I am listening to the music and enjoying it. btw, I have cheap front end equipment, so it may mask defects and anomalies from either type of media.

Dire Straits wouldn't be the only group that has done this, so I am only using them as a representative example.

Cheers,

Marvel

[oscarsear]

1st off I'm not able to answer the question because I don't own the correct equip. But, having read several posts on this analogue VS digital issue I've rather wondered about actually testing it. Take the same music in both formats, neither of which has been pre-heard by the decision maker (subject). Blindfold that subject. Place the subject in their own listening arena. Have a friend play either format multiple times for the un-seeing, yet listening subject. Tabulate the subjects response for both preference and consistency.

Repeat with at least 10 subjects, again on their own equipment (this may eliminate or introduce confounding variables so perhaps a single system would be better, not sure).

Crunch the numbers and provide the statistics. They should then denote a clear preference, or not, with some degree of confidence level for analogue VS digital formats. VOILA!!!

[seti]

I like vinyl better but thats just my preference and I've been blessed with having friends with great vinyl systems.

My best friends dad had a couple cars among them Mercedes 500SL, 1997 Jag XJS, and a 1970 Dodge Charger totally restored and tricked out. I asked him which was his favorite and for just getting around town he liked the Mercedes but when he wanted to get out and cruise and do some serious driving he would not hesitate to take the Charger. You could argue with him until the cows come home about the technological advances engine/suspension system/*** warmers etc with regards to the Mercedes over the Charger but he said that he enjoyed driving the Charger more. You could also argue whether it was the nostalgia, the sound of that big hemi, or the grab your by your seat performance of the Charger but the fact was he simply enjoyed it more and nothing else mattered to him. I think the same is true for vinyl/digital or ss/tube or set/pp horn/what else is there arguement you can listen to both but what it comes down to is what moves you when you sit down to do serious listening. What makes you want to listen to music all night may not work for someone else. In the end it's all about the love of music. Speaking of which Milli Vanilli just came on the radio ack must change station......

[maxg]

Following is what can only be described as a lot more information than you really wanted.

You are either lucky or unlucky in that you chose a recording I selected to do a mountain of testing on in various areas.

Brace yourself!

I have both, and a ripped CD copy on a black CD from a previous post, and a Gold one, a silver one and a 256 Kb/s MP3 on hard disk, solid state media card on Sony Organiser, DVD and CD.

I have compared each to every other one and back and forth several times.

I have repeated this experiment with a variety of CD players and DVD players.

My vinyl copy is in pretty poor condition having been beaten to death over the years.

Which is better very much depends on:

a/ What you want to hear?

b/ What machine it is playing on.

The best I have ever heard this album play is on a CD player that Tony brought round (Which I am ashamed to say I cant remember the name of - but it retails for around 1500 euro) using the Black CD.

Thereafter the other ripped CD's all sounded better than anything else on anything else.

Lastly on that machine was the original disk, which:

was better than the vinyl (I bet no-one ever expected me to say that - but as I said the vinyl is pretty beat).

which was better than the MP3 on a DVD played on the Comet 70 euro DVD/CD player

which was better than the same Black CD played back on the Comet

which was better than the Marantz CD6000 with any of the CD's

which was better than the Denon 3000 DVD player with any of the CD's.

Everything was better than the Sony Handheld computer Solid state storage device thingie. At least that was not a surprise!

Except - remember when I said it depends on what you are looking for?

Nothing - anywhere - ever - matched the Comet for Bass!

No idea on the why's or wherefores no that one - but the Comet produces such prodigious bass on my system it is like adding a sub - and a good one at that. That bass was common across all the formats played on the machine.

T'aint real - at least it doesnt appear to be as nothing else does it - but it sure is nice. Actually the Denon did reasonably good bass too, but everythng else on its playback was poor in comparison to everything else.

What was the question again? Cd or vinyl?

Answer - depends on a whole lot of things!

[Marvel]

Thanks Max. I guess that the orginal CD stayed in the digital domain from the first recording (multitrack at the studio) to your CD.

I just wanted some feedback on it since they recorded with digital to start with. No two inch Ampex / Otari / Studer / 3M machines, mixed down to stereo on an analog two track (1/2 inch normally). Done in digital.

According to some, it should be bad right off the bat. But we haven't heard it in analog so we don't know.

Like I said, they can both sound good/great, and I am listening to the music.

Marvel

[j-malotky]

Just the other night I was over at SMillin's house and, yes we listened to a redbook copy of Brother in Arms as well as many other CD's and SACD's

Being an old LP lover, I too have been sceptical of all the SACD praise, but this is my impressions so far:

Listening to Steve's system, It is my findings that the newer digital technology with the improved transports, clocks, and DAC's do a excelent job that I am very pleased with and I am finding I prefer over LP's

What I hear is the sweet unharsh nice analog sound I love, placed on top of a noticably quieter pallate which I find much more enjoyable.

JM

[garymd]

Come on guys! I a/b'd that for everyone in Indy. Remember? I know Seadog and Griff were in the room but can't remember who else. Pretty sure Craig was there. I preferred the LP but it really depends on the sources. I have 2 beautiful copies on LP and prefer it to the CD on my system. If anyone would like my extra copy to do some experimenting, let me know. It's a great recording on both CD and LP and a good one to compare. Thanks for the thread Marvel.

[Parrot]

Marvel,

I have both the LP and the CD, and just did some A/B switching back and forth with the songs synced up. First, a warning: Side one of the LP is drastically edited compared to the CD. So Far Away is 3:59 vs 5:06 on CD; Money for Nothing is 7:04 compared to 8:24 on CD; Your Latest Trick 4:46 versus 6:31; and Why Worry is three minutes shorter with 5:22 compared to 8:25 on CD.

If you like this recording, you really should have the CD if for nothing else than the extra several minutes you get.

Anyway, I used to think the LP paled in comparison to the CD, but now with the Blueberry preamp phono section, there is surprisingly not much difference. I enjoyed both. The CD has a little more mid bass, but who knows if that is a product of reduced mid bass in my cartridge. But it does go to show how difficult any meaningful comparison is, when phono stages and cartridges vary so much.

I hate to mention it, but I did have some ticks and pops on my vinyl, and that was really the most obvious difference. I find in general that popular music/rock is better on vinyl than classical is. If classical is quiet, you get surface noise, and if it's a dramatically loud piece, you deal with the compression put into the recording in order to transfer it to vinyl.

If GaryMD sees this, he'll jump in. He finds the vinyl vastly better than the CD. As you point out, since the original recording was on digital tape, the logical thing to think is that the CD is truer than the vinyl.

P.S. I remember the day this came out (on LP). My brother stopped by with it. I don't remember how long it was until the CD came out, but I think there was some small gap there. In 1985 CDs really started to move, and Brothers in Arms was a big push. Then with the Beatles releases in 1987, CD became huge. Back in 1984, when I started buying CDs, I had to drive 70 miles to the nearest big city to buy any.

[oscarsear]

The answers provided can be distilled down to "maybe, depends and relative". Max man introduces enough variables to confuse confucious...and there's nothing wrong with that. It renders the point that under a range of playback/format circumstances the same recording achieves different results for the same listener (assuming he can divorce his ears from any prejudices). Max also provides the answer: If you wish to hear the best rendition of any recoring own all the playback tools and test all the formats. VOILA!!

[garymd]

Paul,

I wouldn't say vastly better but I do prefer the vinyl by a small margin. I always thought it was a very well recorded CD (and still do). Thanks for the info regarding the additional length of the tracks on the CD. I didn't realize it was that significant on so many songs. I'll have to go back and compare again. I had the CD for over 10 years before I even saw a copy on vinyl.

[Parrot]

Sorry, Gary, I should have said IMHO you vastly prefer the LP

[Allan Songer]

Never owned or heard of this record. Is it good? I know I've heard the "money for nothing" song before and thought it was pretty witty.

[Deang]

I was in the room Gary, and I'm surprised you don't remember the distinct look of dismay I gave you when I heard you comment on how much better the vinyl sounded than the CD. I heard a slight difference, but it sure wasn't anything that was going to make me run out and convert back to analog.

Let's see, we had Craig's Sony 333ES running through Rick's MSB, and Craig's nice Music Hall table -- all running through the Blueberry and the VRD's. I thought both recordings sounded great.

I think some of this has got to be related to what one's ears are dialed in too. I have quite a few of the new high bit remasters of some of the old stuff, and the new digital versions just crush the original CD releases of the same material.

As far as SACD goes, it's almost impossible to know what to put to the format, and what to put the remix. Some of the SACD's I've heard sound terrible. It's much like Redbook: Well done stuff sounds great, some other stuff sounds awful. Of course, I remember this with albums too.

[dodger]

I have not heard both so my commet does not matter in that sense.

My point is wondering why the length of song difference.

I also have wondered about songs that are almost identical but something added or deleted shortly after release - not for vulagarity.

An example: "Be True To Your School" by the Beach Boys. The very first release in one point there are cheerleaders cheering "Push 'em back...Push 'em Back...Push 'em Way Back."

Now you hear the song, all is identical but for the cheerleaders. They are not there.

"Let it Be" by the Beatles is another curiousity. There is one version on the LP. On a compilation LP all sounds the same but for 2 things. Ringo is double timing on the High Hat Cymbal and the guitar solo is vastly different. One solo is closer to the melody, heavy reverb. The Other is more like a Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughn.

All whom I have talked with in the industry just shrug and say Artist preference. But I have wondered why delete cheerleaders. The guitar solo and drumming are more understandable. It always perplexed me.

Thanks Edwin!

dodger

[Guest Anonymous]

----------------

On 12/2/2004 11:13:45 AM j-malotky wrote:

Just the other night I was over at SMillin's house and, yes we listened to a redbook copy of Brother in Arms as well as many other CD's and SACD's

Being an old LP lover, I too have been sceptical of all the SACD praise, but this is my impressions so far:

Listening to Steve's system, It is my findings that the newer digital technology with the improved transports, clocks, and DAC's do a excelent job that I am very pleased with and I am finding I prefer over LP's

What I hear is the sweet unharsh nice analog sound I love, placed on top of a noticably quieter pallate which I find much more enjoyable.

JM

----------------

John, thanks for the compliment, I sent the player back for the new clock, and a few tweaks. I will have it back in about 10 days. I really feel the redbook only is worth the price of admission, for me. I would love to participate in a blind test, at my home, in my system, with many people around

to get additional opinions. I do not have a TT, or a pre for a TT, so this would also have to be provided. This would be fun, though. I would also be willing to bring my source to anothers home to do this comparison too.

[Guest Anonymous]

----------------

On 12/2/2004 11:46:27 AM garymd wrote:

Paul,

I wouldn't say vastly better but I do prefer the vinyl by a small margin. I always thought it was a very well recorded CD (and still do). Thanks for the info regarding the additional length of the tracks on the CD. I didn't realize it was that significant on so many songs. I'll have to go back and compare again. I had the CD for over 10 years before I even saw a copy on vinyl.

----------------

Gary, if the vinyl was better by a small volume, using the sony 333, which is better for sacd, than redbook, imagine a GREAT analogue sounding tubed player

I do every nite

[maxg]

" I find in general that popular music/rock is better on vinyl than classical is. If classical is quiet, you get surface noise, and if it's a dramatically loud piece, you deal with the compression put into the recording in order to transfer it to vinyl."

Typically the exact reverse of my own experiences. Popular music is much of a muchness between vinyl and CD. Classical music on vinyl destroys CD - not even close.

IMHO / YMMV aad all that.

[Guest Anonymous]

----------------

On 12/2/2004 1:06:17 PM maxg wrote:

" I find in general that popular music/rock is better on vinyl than classical is. If classical is quiet, you get surface noise, and if it's a dramatically loud piece, you deal with the compression put into the recording in order to transfer it to vinyl."

Typically the exact reverse of my own experiences. Popular music is much of a muchness between vinyl and CD. Classical music on vinyl destroys CD - not even close.

IMHO / YMMV aad all that.

----------------

Max, you may be right, and for you,with your equipment, you are. For me, and my audio journey, along with lack of space, I have set myself on a path to find the most accurate digital source, which conveys the most analogue sound reproduction, for me, in my system, with my ears. I have NEVER stated that digital is better than vinyl. I have stated that I am on the search for the most analog sounding machine, that brings me closest to what you guys with vinyl are hearing. I just do not have the room in my current home, nor the patience to play with the TT/album/cleaning/cartridge alignment/cabling ect.

In my search I have owned the following

Denon 2900

Xindak SACD2

Sony XA777ES

Shanling T200C

Denon 3910

Esoteric DV-50

Audio Aero Capitole II

Musical Fidelity Tri Vista

APL SACD 1000

Exemplar 2900

Exemplar 3910

APL 3910

I have listened, and auditioned the Meitner DCC2/SDCD, The DCS/Elgar stack

varios MF dacs, various MF dacs, Modwright Sony 9000ES, Sony 333ES, Sony 555ES

Maverick, Tjoeb, Heart, Naim, and many more.

My search still continues, but, I must say, I am real happy with what I own right now. This is really all that counts. I am haveing fun with my journey.

[Marvel]

Now that would be something. To put Brothers in Arms on SACD means it would have to be upsampled from the original lower bitrate. Although I know some of you guys have upsampling units and say it does wonders.

I think the variables are too great for all of us to be able to make easy comparisons. I guess that's why I can enjoy stuff played back on theose cheap H/K computers speakers.

Allan,

Mark Knopfler, lead guitarist for the Dire Straits, the Notting Hillbillies, and numerous solo projects, studio musician for so many great artists. His guitar playing is almost always tasteful, his lyrics deep (or witty!). He writes like an adult, which is always a plus for me.

Grab a copy of his album. Since it is on vinyl, you can probably pick up a copy that way. He is one of my favorites.

Find a copy of vinyl Brothers in Arms. It might not be the kind of music you like, but is considered by almost everyone to be a great album.

Marvel

[artto]

As the very first American guaranteed by Sony to take delivery of a CD player in the U.S. (actually I had one in my system on loan from Sony months before the actual release), and having extremely high quality of both analog and digital mediums, and having digital and analog versions of both versions of this recording

First let me say that the Brothers In Arms recording, as far a I can tell is not what is known as a true digital recording, even though the CD says A Full Digital Recording on the front cover. On the inside back cover you will notice a description about the Compact Disc and code designation on CD known as DDD, ADD or AAD which refers to how the recording was recorded, mixing and/or editing, and mastered. This CD does not have a three letter code on it. Early on there was quite bit of confusion as what constituted a true, fully digital recording and many were touted as fully digital. When they were truly fully digital, the manufacturer usually went to great lengths describing the process and equipment used (not present on this recording). Also because this recording was recorded at a small studio in the West Indies, I seriously doubt they used digital recorders. It was probably mixed and mastered digitally. And the final product (a CD) was digital, hence the confusion as to it being a true digital recording.

That being said, regardless of whether or not it was actually digitally recorded in the first place, it was one of the first CD, especially in popular music, that was widely acclaimed for its sound quality.

In the early years of CD I can tell you that the first 14 CD released in the U.S. by Sony/CBS were truly awful. We can thank Billy Joels producer, Phil Ramone for helping get things on the right track as he pondered why Joels CD, The Nylon Curtain (one of the 14 original CD releases), sounded so bad, especially in light of the fact that he still had the original master tapes in his vault, and no one had even bothered asking him for them to make the CD!

So to make a long story short, what Ive found over the years is that most audiophiles (myself included, in the past), usually tend to bias their playback systems towards one format or the other. In the beginning, when CD first came out, obviously my playback system (room included) was biased for analog reproduction. However, after experimenting as much as I have with acoustics, Ive found I can bias the playback/room system to a more neutral situation. Now there is very little difference between the formats other than the associated noise problems with analog LP or tape. In my room, since its a somewhat generous size, and I can sit well back in direct range on axis from the speakers, it takes an extremely clean analog recording to be played back at live levels without the annoyances of ticks, pops, and surface or tape noise. Those of you with much smaller rooms who are sitting much closer to the speakers can probably get away with far less gain and therefore many of the associated noise problems probably remain less audible. On the other hand youll also probably have more bias from room influences in conjunction with any particular set of equipment mix youre using. And this is probably why so many audiophiles are ardent proponents of one format or the other. Having made dozens of my own live-in-concert and studio recordings, in both analog and digital formats, all I can tell you is that a great recording is not easy to come by, sometimes it just happens. And that as your playback system gets more and more refined, balanced neutral (after all, thats what HIGH FIDELITY means, its about reproducing the original sound, not just what YOU think is good sound), youll find less to gripe about any particular format. Ive heard great recordings in all formats, new and old. The unfortunate reality of the matter is the vast majority of recordings are mediocre in the first place, intended to sound their best on a car radio, not a high fidelity system. GRRRR!!!