"Digital vs. Analog"--Here's another good material

[RAPTORMAN]

Date: November 29, 2005

To: Mr. Gawain Emanuel, University of Pittsburgh Professor

From: Jesse Brocious, University of Pittsburgh

Subject: Final Report, True Audio Reproduction

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

Enclosed is a copy of my report on analog and digital audio recording. After submitting the proposal of the topic, this final report provides detailed information regarding analog and digital audio formats.

With research and personal experience, the report includes technical and opinion based information. The research for the paper provided some new information that supports my opinions as well as show evidence for the perceived differences between the two formats.

Based on the research I have reviewed, my assertion that analog audio provides a more natural listening experience is supported. New technologies have overshadowed the traditional analog form, but analog has had a resurgence recently. As more advancements in technology are introduced, those individuals who do not know of the old recording format will not have the opportunity to hear the lifelike and natural sound.

Thank you for the opportunity to research this topic and present its findings. Please contact me at jdb152@pitt.edu with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Jesse Brocious

Executive Summary

The introduction of digital audio during the 1980s brought on a race to create the most pure fidelity. This race has caused most of the audio product consumers to move from their old analog audio equipment (vinyl records) to the new digital audio (compact discs). As with any new technology, people will take hold of a new product and spend whatever it takes to get the latest gear.

With the new audio revolution, the old vintage analog form is slowly becoming extinct. Audiophiles have began to switch from their trusted vinyl recordings as well. Today, many new consumers do not even know that vinyl records are still available and produced. The rapid shift from analog to digital can be summed up in one word, convenience. Compact discs are cheaper to produce, easier to maintain, have a longer life, and can be copied unlimited times with no change in quality.

Given the ease of use, digital audio may seem like the logical choice, but for pure audio reproduction vinyl will remain the best choice. When cost, time, and effort are of no object and the user desires the most accurate reproduction of his or her favorite music, vinyl will be the choice of the most discerning audiophile. Based on research, personal experience, and technical data, analog recordings are fundamentally superior when given the proper setup and maintenance. While good quality equipment and calibration may require additional effort and money, the results will be rewarding.

In order to show the differences between the two audio formats, technical knowledge will be necessary to understand the fundamentals. While analog recording is a constant replication of the music, digital recording is, the chopping up of music into little pieces, and reconstituting it like powdered orange juice (Holt).

Given my research and personal experiences, I assert that analog recording provides a more natural and uniform listening experience.

True Audio Reproduction

Since the inception of recorded sound, novices and audiophiles alike have tried to reproduce sound as accurately as possible. Today, with the digital revolution, many have lost appreciation for the natural sound of analog audio.

Introduction

During the 1980s, the compact disc (CD) was introduced as the first mass-produced digital1 audio format. This led way to an on going debate as to whether the new digital format was better than the traditional analog2 format. While an analog recording is a mechanical representation of the sound, a digital recording encodes the original sound with a computer (Analog). The debate amongst audiophiles lies in the fact that digital recording breaks the audio into thousands of pieces to be decoded later, while analog recordings are an actual representation of the sound waves. That being said, the use of traditional analog sources will produce a more life-like and natural listening experience.

As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, sound waves are A longitudinal pressure wave of audible or inaudible sound (sound wave). These sound waves are perceived differently by each individual and are subject to scrutiny. Much of the debate regarding the differences between analog and digital recordings are more or less perceived, but there is technical and scientific evidence as well.

By establishing an understanding of sound and its structure, my research shows that analog recordings are superior in many audible areas. These areas will be evaluated in regards to perception and scientific evidence. Most of the debate on this issue resides in the perception of the music being played, and as J. Gordon Holt states, The first stereo discs were castigated by most sonically-aware critics on precisely the same grounds (Holt).

Analog and Digital Technicalities

In order to understand the differences in the two formats, a clear foundation of the reproduction of sound is necessary. Sound itself is vibration and is represented by waves in a graphical form. Mathematically, sound is defined by frequency, wavelength, and amplitude. For the purposes of this paper, frequency will be the only term needed for a clear understanding of the material. Frequency is defined as, the number of air pressure oscillations per second at a fixed point occupied by a sound wave. One single oscillatory cycle per second corresponds to 1 Hz3 (Sound). To humans, the average audible range is somewhere between 20-20,000hz, with 20hz being low bass frequencies and higher pitched frequencies ranging upwards of 20,000hz.

For the analog format, a wave will be a direct correlation of the actual sound being recorded. A digital format on the other hand will be an estimate of the original waveform (see figure 1). By estimating the pattern of the waveform, many proponents of analog audio feel that digital recordings lose the natural flow of the sound.

Vinyl records for example have a groove carved into the surface that mimics the actual wave pattern. Compact discs on the other hand break up the analog pattern at a rate of 44,100 times per second (also referred to as 44.1kHz). A computer then processes this sample of the analog signal and the pieces are put back together as an audible form. This process is known as a digital to analog conversion, DAC for short (Analog).

Audible and Perceptible Differences

Audio recording quality is greatly based on the listeners perception. Many of the most discerning audiophiles have quite different views as to which audio format is more accurate. Technology today has created new formats of digital audio that create recordings of 192kHz, which is over four times the sampling rate of conventional compact discs. With the new format, the original analog sound wave is much more closely followed (Sound).

In terms of audible differences, the new format can replicate an original analog recording much better, but it is still not exact. Critics claim, that the analog sound is "truer" because it is not reconstructed (Analog). Imagine drawing a circle by connecting lines more like an octagon, the circle will obviously not be smooth despite following a similar pattern. Thus, the analog recording can follow an infinite wave while the digital form will still be in pieces no matter how many pieces (see figure 2). This irregularity is also known as aliasing4.

The fluctuations in the wave pattern are usually audible in instruments such as drums. Quick changes in the music can be missed by the recording and will be heard as a light popping or bottoming out. On the hand, analog recordings will provide a smooth transition regardless of timing or frequency.

Analog recordings are not perfect though, and for the audiophile vinyl records usually define absolute fidelity. The downside to analog vinyl recordings is their lack of resilience. They are easily scratched, any dust on the record will be heard, and they wear out over time. In order to reach their full potential the vinyl must be meticulously maintained. However, dust is the biggest culprit to deteriorating sound quality on a vinyl recording. Dust can cause interference between the needle reading the grooves in the recording. On the other hand, J. Gordon Holt remarks,
Every technological advance in sound reproduction has been hailed as "unmusical," "unnatural," and "contrary to God's law." The first electrical recordings were condemned (by those who cared about sound at all) as "shrill," "steely" (footnote 1) and "unmusical" (Holt).
That being said, both formats can have their downsides, but for the audio purist analog will remain superior.

Many contenders of analog recordings find the popping or clicking caused by dust and scratches in the vinyl to be the biggest downside. Unfortunately, most of those individuals have never had the ability to listen to a high quality recording on high quality equipment. The difference is night and day and a very detailed soundstage is present when the noises are eliminated. Robert Hof states,
Many audiophiles, for instance, swear that well-produced, well-maintained vinyl records produce warmer, more pleasing music than compact disks. "The old vinyl sounds better," insists Al Farleigh, owner of Big Al's Record Barn in the Silicon Valley city of Santa Clara, Calif (Hof).

As more people make the switch to digital, the more distant younger generations will grow apart from the older technologies. The digital age will continue to advance and at sometime maybe match the natural sound of vinyl, but until then people should try and appreciate the distinct sound.

Conclusions

In order to build an appreciation for old technology, an A and B comparison would be necessary to show the differences. The trouble with sound is that it relies heavily on opinion and perception. Even in a direct comparison, someone who is accustomed to certain sound qualities might be partial to attributes others may find harsh or unpleasant. The benefit to analog recordings is that it usually carries a warm and smooth sound unlike the metallic or synthesized sound of digital recordings

Digital audio has many advantages over analog audio to the everyday user. Digital audio in the CD form is more portable, reliable, easy to use, and less expensive. From the economical and practical standpoint, digital is superior in almost every aspect. On the other hand, my assertion remains in the fact that for the audiophile or someone seeking purity and musical excellence, analog vinyl recordings can provide an unrivaled soundstage. Regardless of the subject matter or product, a consumer seeking something premium will not be concerned with the additional effort or money needed to grasp the added benefits.

From the technical standpoint analog may lack sophistication in the area of noise reduction and tone control, but as long as the original recording is true to the real music it will sound more natural. Given the right equipment and a quality recording even the most diehard digital fan will grow an appreciation for how musical analog recordings can be. Hof comments in his article,
Behind the sleek facade of the digital age there lurks a dirty little secret. Creaky old "analog" technologies such as film, vinyl phonograph records, and, yes, even mechanical clocks with revolving hands boast a raft of advantages -- a richness, longevity, and human scale -- that most of their digital counterparts are not yet able to match (Hof).

Analog audio is the pinnacle of prestige and quality for someone seeking unparalleled reproduction of music. By taking the additional time to maintain and calibrate an analog setup the sound quality can be impacted greatly.

[Daddy Dee]

Raptorman,

Thanks for the post. interesting.

This article has something of an apocryphal feel to it. Where did you run across it?

[rcarlton]

I sure would like to read more. Really have some concern about some statements made in the summary.

"In order to build an appreciation for old technology, an A and B comparison would be necessary to show the differences."

No comparison sited?

"The benefit to analog recordings is that it usually carries a warm and smooth sound unlike the metallic or synthesized sound of digital recordings "

Kind of a broad brush statement with nothing sited to back it up.

[Duke Spinner]

what a load of Crap ..

what ......a Thesis by a Student ...??

ALL your modern recordings are Digital at some point ...........

[RAPTORMAN]

Raptorman,

Thanks for the post. interesting.

This article has something of an apocryphal feel to it. Where did you run across it?

Father Dee

I got this from the "Vinyl Asylum" according to the poster it's an article from Audiokarma. I'm not really sure about it's authenticity (did I spell that right?), but some of the things mention seems to be true in my own experience.

[Duke Spinner]

I should mention ..

i used to belive in 100% analog ...ya know, like Niell Young

as I gained more real world expeience with Digital .Recording

or perhaps the Medium caught up to Expectations ......

I saw that naysayers ...

are people with no Actual experience in such matters........

[jacksonbart]

I did a little research since I have a few friends at University of Pittsburgh. This was what I found.

Date: November 30, 2005

To: Mr. Gawain Emanuel, University of Pittsburgh Professor

From: Jesse Brocious, University of Pittsburgh

Subject: Final Report Updated, True Audio Reproduction

Dear Mr. Emanuel: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Enclosed is an updated copy of my report. I regret to inform you that my assistants played a joke on me by changing my conclusions to actually supporting vinyl. They are really a crack staff but the long hours have taken their toll and so they just needed a release. Joke was on me as I did not proof read the report prior to sending. As they say live and learn and believe me I did. Suffice to say vinyl should only be used as a form of exterior siding.

Sincerely

Jesse Brocious

[Duke Spinner]

See ...

there ya go ....

proof supreme .....

[sfogg]

For those that prefer analog.....

http://cgi.ebay.com/CARVER-DIGITAL-TIME-LENS_W0QQitemZ5854993351QQcategoryZ14978QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

And put your CD players output through it. It introduces some phase

shift between L/R (what gives LPs their 'depth' in comparison to CD),

adds noise and I think rolls off the top end a little.

Shawn

[DrWho]

"no actual experience" or no actual understanding either...

The author of that article clearly does not understand how digital works and to read it is quite annoying...Only because I have too much time to kill, I am going to go through and point out every false statement made (not saying that I'm an expert on the matter, but such gross mis-statements are the reason for the stupidity of analog vs. digital "debates". Seriously, it's like arguing with a little kid that thinks 2 x 3 = 5). So here goes:

Executive Summary

The introduction of digital audio during the 1980s brought on a race to create the most pure fidelity. This race has caused most of the audio product consumers to move from their old analog audio equipment (vinyl records) to the new digital audio (compact discs). As with any new technology, people will take hold of a new product and spend whatever it takes to get the latest gear.

With the new audio revolution, the old vintage analog form is slowly becoming extinct. Audiophiles have began to switch from their trusted vinyl recordings as well. Today, many new consumers do not even know that vinyl records are still available and produced. The rapid shift from analog to digital can be summed up in one word, convenience. Compact discs are cheaper to produce, easier to maintain, have a longer life, and can be copied unlimited times with no change in quality.

First of all I want to point out that audiophiles are not part of the general public...in other words, the author notices that audiophiles (those concerned with upmost fidelity) are moving away from LPs in favor of digital. Last I checked, that has nothing to do with "convenience." Just an interesting contradiction that the author makes that I wanted to point out.

Given the ease of use, digital audio may seem like the logical choice, but for pure audio reproduction vinyl will remain the best choice. When cost, time, and effort are of no object and the user desires the most accurate reproduction of his or her favorite music, vinyl will be the choice of the most discerning audiophile. (then why the heck are audiophiles moving to digital?) Based on research, personal experience, and technical data, analog recordings are fundamentally superior when given the proper setup and maintenance. While good quality equipment and calibration may require additional effort and money, the results will be rewarding.

In order to show the differences between the two audio formats, technical knowledge will be necessary to understand the fundamentals. While analog recording is a constant replication of the music, digital recording is, the chopping up of music into little pieces, and reconstituting it like powdered orange juice (Holt).

Seems Holt is an idiot then - good thing he quoted an idiot as that really helps his claim. The "connect-the-dots" theory of digital waveforms is soooo far from the truth that it's ridiculous that it even needs to be mentioned. Assuming a perfect DAC, a digital representation of the waveform is 100% identical as long as frequencies below the alias frequency are being used. This statement is as true as claiming that 2+2=4 and I will not go into explaining this (I'll leave that up to the interested reader to go do some research on their own).

Given my research and personal experiences, I assert that analog recording provides a more natural and uniform listening experience.

True Audio Reproduction

Since the inception of recorded sound, novices and audiophiles alike have tried to reproduce sound as accurately as possible. Today, with the digital revolution, many have lost appreciation for the natural sound of analog audio.

So now novices are interested in as accurate of a sound as possible? Well then, why the heck are novices moving to digital now too....especially if digital doesn't sound better, yet those people are seeking a better sound? Contradictions galore, my goodness

Introduction

During the 1980s, the compact disc (CD) was introduced as the first mass-produced digital1 audio format. This led way to an on going debate as to whether the new digital format was better than the traditional analog2 format. While an analog recording is a mechanical representation of the sound, a digital recording encodes the original sound with a computer (Analog). The debate amongst audiophiles lies in the fact that digital recording breaks the audio into thousands of pieces to be decoded later, while analog recordings are an actual representation of the sound waves. Ya know...very simple waveform analysis will show this claim to be complete bunk. And how bout we talk to the engineers that have to design around the different limiations of the different mediums? And again, the concept of "bunch of little pieces" is so far from the true idea behind digital storage. That being said, the use of traditional analog sources will produce a more life-like and natural listening experience.

As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, sound waves are A longitudinal pressure wave of audible or inaudible sound (sound wave). These sound waves are perceived differently by each individual and are subject to scrutiny. Much of the debate regarding the differences between analog and digital recordings are more or less perceived, but there is technical and scientific evidence as well.

Who cares if there are inconsistencies with how the same sound waves are percieved? If it's the same sound wave, then it's the same sound wave - perceptions do not need to be discusses in such a discussion (unless of course there are observations that require the scientific models to change).

By establishing an understanding of sound and its structure, my research shows that analog recordings are superior in many audible areas. These areas will be evaluated in regards to perception and scientific evidence. Most of the debate on this issue resides in the perception of the music being played, and as J. Gordon Holt states, The first stereo discs were castigated by most sonically-aware critics on precisely the same grounds (Holt).

Hey look, it's that idiot Holt again. I agree with him this time though...the early CDs sounded like utter crap for all sorts of reasons - reasons that have been easily and "perfectly" accounted for (like aliasing and timing issues).

Analog and Digital Technicalities

In order to understand the differences in the two formats, a clear foundation of the reproduction of sound is necessary. Sound itself is vibration and is represented by waves in a graphical form. Mathematically, sound is defined by frequency, wavelength, and amplitude. For the purposes of this paper, frequency will be the only term needed for a clear understanding of the material. Frequency is defined as, the number of air pressure oscillations per second at a fixed point occupied by a sound wave. One single oscillatory cycle per second corresponds to 1 Hz3 (Sound). To humans, the average audible range is somewhere between 20-20,000hz, with 20hz being low bass frequencies and higher pitched frequencies ranging upwards of 20,000hz.

For the analog format, a wave will be a direct correlation of the actual sound being recorded. A digital format on the other hand will be an estimate of the original waveform (see figure 1). Interesting, where is the "proof"? I have a good idea of what this figure might look like (and again, connect the dots is not how digital works) By estimating the pattern of the waveform, many proponents of analog audio feel that digital recordings lose the natural flow of the sound.

Vinyl records for example have a groove carved into the surface that mimics the actual wave pattern. Actually, the groove doesn't mimic the actual wave at all because the "wave" stores on the LP is vastly processes so as to minimize the mechanical limitations of the playback mechanism. You know, that whole RIAA equalization curve (which has changed many times over the years - I sure hope everyone playing back LP's has every version of the EQ built into their phono preamp) Compact discs on the other hand break up the analog pattern at a rate of 44,100 times per second (also referred to as 44.1kHz). A computer then processes this sample of the analog signal and the pieces are put back together as an audible form. This process is known as a digital to analog conversion, DAC for short (Analog). And this digital process uses sinewaves - not straight lines to rebuild the sound so as to be "identical" to its input. Sure, nothing is perfect, but we can conduct waveform analysis to compare how close each one is to the original sound (and we can even use analog equipment to do this so as to give the naysayers nothing to complain about).

Audible and Perceptible Differences

Audio recording quality is greatly based on the listeners perception. Many of the most discerning audiophiles have quite different views as to which audio format is more accurate. Technology today has created new formats of digital audio that create recordings of 192kHz, which is over four times the sampling rate of conventional compact discs. With the new format, the original analog sound wave is much more closely followed (Sound).

In terms of audible differences, the new format can replicate an original analog recording much better, but it is still not exact. Critics claim, that the analog sound is "truer" because it is not reconstructed (Analog). Imagine drawing a circle by connecting lines more like an octagon, the circle will obviously not be smooth despite following a similar pattern. Thus, the analog recording can follow an infinite wave while the digital form will still be in pieces no matter how many pieces (see figure 2). This irregularity is also known as aliasing4.

Actually, aliasing is what occurs when you try to sample a sound with frequencies above the nyquist rate (1/2 the sampling frequency). The reason CD redbook audio is sampled at 44.1kHz is to allow a lowpass filter to not affect frequencies below 20kHz, while also giving the filter room to get frequencies above 22.05kHz down to an inaudible level.

The fluctuations in the wave pattern are usually audible in instruments such as drums. Quick changes in the music can be missed by the recording and will be heard as a light popping or bottoming out. On the hand, analog recordings will provide a smooth transition regardless of timing or frequency.

Actually, digital does a far better job with instruments like drums because there is no mechanical limitation compressing the sharp transient spikes. Sure, clipping a digital signal sounds like crap - but how bout we compare a nonclipping digital signal to a non clipping analog signal.

Analog recordings are not perfect though, and for the audiophile vinyl records usually define absolute fidelity. The downside to analog vinyl recordings is their lack of resilience. They are easily scratched, any dust on the record will be heard, and they wear out over time. In order to reach their full potential the vinyl must be meticulously maintained. However, dust is the biggest culprit to deteriorating sound quality on a vinyl recording. Dust can cause interference between the needle reading the grooves in the recording. On the other hand, J. Gordon Holt remarks,
Every technological advance in sound reproduction has been hailed as "unmusical," "unnatural," and "contrary to God's law." The first electrical recordings were condemned (by those who cared about sound at all) as "shrill," "steely" (footnote 1) and "unmusical" (Holt).
That being said, both formats can have their downsides, but for the audio purist analog will remain superior.

Audio purist, eh? He must be referring to people like the car fanatics that own a lot of fancy cars, but never drive them for fear of ruining the car. I actually listen to a lot of music and I am yet to concieve the concept of damaging my music in order to hear it. How does one know when the fidelity of the constantly damaging analog medium becomes worse than the CD? Most of the time, the damage is irreversable because no other quality LP exists.

Many contenders of analog recordings find the popping or clicking caused by dust and scratches in the vinyl to be the biggest downside. Unfortunately, most of those individuals have never had the ability to listen to a high quality recording on high quality equipment. The difference is night and day and a very detailed soundstage is present when the noises are eliminated. Robert Hof states,
Many audiophiles, for instance, swear that well-produced, well-maintained vinyl records produce warmer, more pleasing music than compact disks. "The old vinyl sounds better," insists Al Farleigh, owner of Big Al's Record Barn in the Silicon Valley city of Santa Clara, Calif (Hof).

As more people make the switch to digital, the more distant younger generations will grow apart from the older technologies. The digital age will continue to advance and at sometime maybe match the natural sound of vinyl, but until then people should try and appreciate the distinct sound.

Conclusions

In order to build an appreciation for old technology, an A and B comparison would be necessary to show the differences. The trouble with sound is that it relies heavily on opinion and perception. Even in a direct comparison, someone who is accustomed to certain sound qualities might be partial to attributes others may find harsh or unpleasant. The benefit to analog recordings is that it usually carries a warm and smooth sound unlike the metallic or synthesized sound of digital recordings

Hmmm, what's wrong with a synethesized or metallic sound if that's what the artist is trying to achieve. Poor Brian Eno...all his work is for naught [] It's funny to note though that all of the AB comparisons I have seen over the years have gone to show how deaf the LP lovers are - who can't even pick out their own turntable in their own room with their system when other components are blindly swapped in. I am dying to read of an analog lover actually "doing well" on one of these tests...it would be just the thing to make me seriously consider LP's.

Digital audio has many advantages over analog audio to the everyday user. Digital audio in the CD form is more portable, reliable, easy to use, and less expensive. From the economical and practical standpoint, digital is superior in almost every aspect. On the other hand, my assertion remains in the fact that for the audiophile or someone seeking purity and musical excellence, analog vinyl recordings can provide an unrivaled soundstage. Regardless of the subject matter or product, a consumer seeking something premium will not be concerned with the additional effort or money needed to grasp the added benefits.

From the technical standpoint analog may lack sophistication in the area of noise reduction and tone control, but as long as the original recording is true to the real music it will sound more natural. Given the right equipment and a quality recording even the most diehard digital fan will grow an appreciation for how musical analog recordings can be. Hof comments in his article,
Behind the sleek facade of the digital age there lurks a dirty little secret. Creaky old "analog" technologies such as film, vinyl phonograph records, and, yes, even mechanical clocks with revolving hands boast a raft of advantages -- a richness, longevity, and human scale -- that most of their digital counterparts are not yet able to match (Hof).

He means the mass produced digital counterparts are yet to match...I am yet to see the epitomy of analog exceed the performance of even the middle of the road digital (let alone the epitomy of digital).

Analog audio is the pinnacle of prestige and quality for someone seeking unparalleled reproduction of music. By taking the additional time to maintain and calibrate an analog setup the sound quality can be impacted greatly.

I didn't know prestige had anything to do with sound quality. LP's certainly have thier own aesthetic appeal and one could even argue that it sets the mood for the listener in such a way so as to enhance their listening experience. So argue that vinyl sounds better all you want. I will never disagree with that subjective view point. But objectively digital is by far a "better" medium.

And if you think I'm on crack, take up that million dollar challenge to prove in a blind ABX test that you can detect which has the ADC/DAC wired in series in a purely analog circuit.

[sfogg]

"The

"connect-the-dots" theory of digital waveforms is soooo far from the

truth that it's ridiculous that it even needs to be mentioned."

Exactly. Short answer is if anyone claims 'connect the dots' then it is

a big red flag that they simply don't have a clue how digital works.

In the archives somewhere we had a big thread on this. I posted

numerous photos of a digitized wave and a wave from the function

generator to see if anyone could 'connect the dots.'

Shawn

[DrWho]

As a side note...I'm looking forward to this next semester where we will be doing experiments with the algorithms for converting a series of voltages into binary data and then doing all sorts of processing and then extracting the analog waveform back again. I think the biggest issue they're going to try to drive home are the rounding errors that can occur with digital processing - but that's why the good studios do everything but their data storage in the analog domain (and then you keep the best of both worlds).

All that to say, I'm not at all against "analog" - I'm yet to hear a decent vinyl rig though (or so I'm told) []

[sfogg]

"I think the biggest issue they're going to try to drive home are the

rounding errors that can occur with digital processing -"

Which is why processing typically occurs at bit depths well above the

audios bit depth. For example processing at 32 bit, 48 bits or even 64

bits isn't rare at all.

"but that's why

the good studios do everything but their data storage in the analog

domain (and then you keep the best of both worlds)."

Analog equipment introduces distortion/noise/errors into the signal

too, which is why a lot of studios do everything digital. And for some

types of processing analog simply doesn't have the equivalent to what

can be done in digital.

Shawn

[www.records]

There is analog done well.

There is digital done well.

There is analog done poorly.

There is digital done poorly.

I prefer just listening to music, not the medium.

[MarkBK]

How many more Ipods were sold while we read this thread revisiting the argument of Analog vs Digital.......? Hmmmmmm.

[Daddy Dee]

Raptorman,

Thanks for the post. interesting.

This article has something of an apocryphal feel to it. Where did you run across it?

Father Dee

I

got this from the "Vinyl Asylum" according to the poster it's an

article from Audiokarma. I'm not really sure about it's

authenticity (did I spell that right?), but some of the things mention

seems to be true in my own experience.

Raptorman,

Gotcha. Thanks.

[joshnich]

This is absurd

If people cannot hear the difference between anologue and digital, quoting experts isnt going to change their mind. If they cannot hear it it, dont bother trying to convince them. Its their loss. I say this with all respect. If you cannot hear the difference, I agree dont bother with vinyl. Believe me, If I thought that CDs sounded better I wouldnt spend the dough that i do to listen to the superior sounding vinyl. Just dont insult the people who have the hearing to tell the difference.

Josh

[DrWho]

Just dont insult the people who have the hearing to tell the difference.

You sound like a prime candidate for the million dollar challenge thing...be sure to let us know when you win. [][]

[maxg]

Lots of interesting "facts" in this thread. bit difficult to know where to start.

"Audiophiles moving back to digital?" Really? Not something I have seen - nor, seemingly, have the manufacturers, distributors and retailers of audio equipment that I know.

The "facts" that I have been given from the above sources are:

1. SACD and DVDa units only move if they are all in one units playing all digital media. These are almost never sold to "audiophiles".

2. Turntables are selling in ever greater numbers. There are now no Hi-fi suppliers in Greece that do not sell at least one brand of turntable and many sell several brands covering the gamut of price categories.

3. Vinyl sales are up across the board. There are more shops selling vinyl in Athens (new and used) than shops selling CD's (although the CD suppliers tend to be large chains with much larger stores). Several of these large chains have also started selling vinyl comparitively recently, whilst largely stopping stocking SACD and DVDa at all.

It seems to me that there is a lot of hiding behind the technicalities from the pro-digital group and massive use of pro-analogue's incorrect terminology usage in order to undermine, or attempt to undermine the findings.

Suffice it to say that when SACD was launched there was a lot of fuss made by the suppliers about how much closer the new sound was to analogue. There was a whole slew of information fed to the marketplace about how much closer the DSD 1 bit 2.8 million samples per second recording system got closer to the original analogue wave form than the original 44.1/16 bit system employed by CD.

My own experience is that non-audiophiles typically prefer the analogue sound of vinyl when confronted with it. My wife, for example, who could not give a rats arse about audio states simply "the vinyl sounds better" each and every time we hear the two formats playing against each other - and switching between them she can spot the analogue immediately.

Now it might be that CD is technically the better medium. It might be that what we are hearing is merely the result of more care taken in the creation of the recording with vinyl than with the creation of the CD and that if someone were to take the same level of care producing a CD it would outplay the vinyl record. It matters not.

What matters to me is that I can go out and buy vinyl records and consistently get better sound than buying the equivalent on whatever digital media you care to name. That I get the additional bonus of a much lower cash outlay for this qualiy is also not a disadvantage.

Having said all of that I must point out that even when I buy supposedly superb CD's (such as XRCD's) for singularly large investments (typically 25 to 30 euros for a disk as opposed to classcial records at 1 euro per) the sonic result is below that of the vinyl record.

Take the $million challenge? What challenge is this? I hear about these things time and time again in all sorts of areas but when you read what is involved in the tests they rarely actually give a fair shot at winning (unsurprizingly).

I will tell you about the real challenge I did do:

I voted with my wallet. I had already gone into SACD when I re-discovered vinyl. I invested in a very moderate TT setup (a Project RPM4) which outplayed my then CD player (Marantz CD 6000) to my ears (and those of anyone else who came to listen). I then slowly upgraded that table over a period of 3 years to the point that the gulf was enormous. Then I rose to the real challenge of the formats. I invested in a proper, high end turntable.

Lets call that the $10,000 challenge shall we. If there was a sonically equivalent digital option in any way cheaper than that do you really think I would not have gone that route? Am I alone in doing this? Far from it. In fact others that I know regard my own investment in this dead medium as a baby step in comparison to their own investments. These are people that spare no expense in trying to create the best possible sound in their homes. Are they wrong? I think not (although sane is another question altogther). They may shout the gospel of vinyl from their rooftops but there is a reason behind it - it gives them what they regard as the best sonic result, if it did not, if something else did, I am sure that would shout that instead.

[PrestonTom]

It really is interesting how the "connect the dots" - view has become so embedded in the way that some conceive of digital waveforms.

The idea of the final low-pass filter (reconstruction filter) is ignored. When you look at the digital waveform on an oscilloscope, you really can connect the dots. Add even the simplest of low-pass filters, then it looks entirely "analog". Hmmmmm, where did the dots go?

Good Luck,

-Tom