Opinions on Digital vs Analog?

[Morgan]

Years ago before digital, my analog system consisted of an Onkyo silver series turntable, a Grace Ruby Cartridge with a Grace F9-E Needle. Cost for that set up back in the 80s was over $500. When ever available, I always went with the Direct to Disc version of the record. an average cost of about $20 to $25. vs. $4.00 for a vinyl stamping. Now that I have switched to digital, I just cannot understand how someone with a cartridge / needle / turntable combination not quite up to par with my old analog system, using a vinyl stamp-out recording, can argue that their system has a superior sound quality. I'm not even using a SACD or DVD Audio, for my comparison, just a standard CD or WAV file. I'm feeding pure digital lossless information into my amp and speakers. How can a loss-ing analog system sound better?

[Boomzilla]

On paper, it can't. But what folks hear is often in contrast with what they read. Assume, for the moment, that both sides are playing with honest intent and fair acceptance of what the other folks hear.

A top of the line analog system, to my ears, CAN sound as good as a middle of the line digital one. And in fact, in the critical midrange (where the music lives), an analog system can equal a top of the line digital system. But it can't outperform the digital system at the frequency extremes. Digital has more accurate bass and (with high-resolution files) more extended treble.

Now it must also be said that the mastering of the source file, disc, or record has a LOT to do with what you may hear. A digital file that was recorded and mastered for analog usually won't sound as good in digital as a file that was intended for digital reproduction from the microphones on. This is just common sense.

The most enthusiastic audiophiles I know maintain BOTH analog and digital systems, and often prefer certain types of music on one or the other. YMMV

Boomzilla

[Morgan]

Boomzilla, I often heard that an analog recording has a "warmer" quality to it. But without the ultra highs and lows, it's like listening to music that has been filtered, kinda like what you would get when using the Dolby B/C, HX-Pro, and DBX filters on a tape player to eliminate the playback hiss. Or worse yet, music you hear when you get older, less higher highs and lower lows. At least with digital you can turn them up to a point where you can still hear them.
Thanks for your response!

[Boomzilla]

As always, my opinion and a buck will get you a cup of McCoffee (if you’re eligible for the senior discount). LOL

[KeithL]

The short answer is that "sounds better" is a subjective thing.

A lossless digital audio signal or file is absolutely capable of being more accurate (although good quality analog can be pretty good).
But, because analog is potentially less accurate, and more variable, it offers more opportunity to "fine tune" what you hear if you don't specifically want "accurate".

It's also worth mentioning that each sort of analog medium has its own specific types of variations.

For example, analog TAPE tends to introduce background hiss, as well as high frequency saturation and phase shift.
Tapes specifically tend to limit or soften high frequencies... and the effect is stronger with loud high frequency content like cymbals.
(But, while they vary in degree, these effects are quite similar across most tape media.)

In the case of VINYL... things are far more complicated.

First of all vinyl has a relatively high level of background noise (hiss) as well as being subject to snaps and pops from dust and scratches.
These are unavoidable to a degree and annoy some of us more than others.

Then vinyl itself introduces specific types of distortion which sound a certain way.
Some of these distortions will vary depending on various things like the turntable, the cartridge, the phono preamp, and even settings for things like tracking force and antiskating. 
(These can be pretty minor but do contribute to a distinctive sound for vinyl.)

And in addition to that the limitations of the medium require certain adjustments to me made when music is mastered for vinyl.
High frequency content must be limited in level or compressed and loud low frequency content must be mixed down to monaural.
(As a result, since digital content formats don't have these limitations, the mix is usually adjusted specifically for vinyl.)

In addition there is something called RIAA equalization.
In order to overcome specific limitations of vinyl, certain frequencies are boosted and cut before recording, and the process is reversed in the phono preamp during playback.
Because this equalization is usually done in the analog domain, and is actually quite extreme in degree, it is often not done especially accurately (sometimes with variations of up to several dB).
The result is that certain vinyl records, or records produced by certain companies, may have a distinctive sound, and MOST phono preamps have a distinctive sound to some degree...

And, finally, phono cartridges are electromechanical devices, so they vary considerably in their frequency response, and tend to interact significantly with what you connect them to.
Cartridges each have a distinctive frequency response and distortion characteristic...
And, in addition to that, the load applied to the output of the cartridge will alter the way it sounds...
Some phono preamps have a fixed load while others offer the option to adjust it...
And, with Moving Magnet cartridges, the capacitance of the cable used to connect the cartridge to the preamp can also have a significant effect on this...
(Many cartridge manufacturers specify a recommended capacitance for the load... and varying this can have a large effect on how they sound.)

The upshot of all of these factors is that there are a lot of things that can cause the same vinyl album to sound very different when played on different systems.
And this offers many opportunities to "tune the way your system sounds" with vinyl than with other sources.
(The downside is that they make it very difficult to get an analog vinyl playback system to sound truly accurate or neutral.)
Compared to these differences, the differences between most amplifiers or DACs is relatively small.
(But speakers, speaker placement, and room acoustics can have an equally major affect... )

The bottom line is that, assuming that the rest of your system is relatively accurate, the CD or WAV file is probably the most accurate...
But the analog signal is probably offering you more opportunity to adjust the results to potentially create a less accurate sound that you simply find more pleasing.
(And, it is your system, so that's what actually counts... right?)

May 17, 2023 21:34:53 GMT -5 Morgan said:

Years ago before digital, my analog system consisted of an Onkyo silver series turntable, a Grace Ruby Cartridge with a Grace F9-E Needle. Cost for that set up back in the 80s was over $500. When ever available, I always went with the Direct to Disc version of the record. an average cost of about $20 to $25. vs. $4.00 for a vinyl stamping. Now that I have switched to digital, I just cannot understand how someone with a cartridge / needle / turntable combination not quite up to par with my old analog system, using a vinyl stamp-out recording, can argue that their system has a superior sound quality. I'm not even using a SACD or DVD Audio, for my comparison, just a standard CD or WAV file. I'm feeding pure digital lossless information into my amp and speakers. How can a loss-ing analog system sound better?

[Morgan]

Your explanation was easy to follow and understand, and I thank you for that. Like most of us on this forum, I have a decent amount of money tied up in my system. People often ask me what kind of music do I listen to. My answer is always whatever is recorded well. I don't sing along or even bob my head as I'm listening to music. I'm listening for the complexity of the recording, the shuttle tang of a triangle, etc. I guess that makes me more into accuracy. I can play back a CD on my present system that produces minuet sounds usually played on back channels, that were unheard on my analog system. That leads me to ask, If you don't know if the sound is present, how can you adjust a system to hear it? Or, when do you stop "fine tuning" something when you don't know when the best end result is.
With all the environmental variables you mentioned plus all the reproduction equipment nuances to consider, I would go nuts trying to achieve what I would be able to consider as my preferred sound. So it's like one being partial to scotch instead of bourbon, or a blond over a redhead. I like scotch, redheads and accuracy when listening to music. Thanks for your time and your reply.

[marcl]

May 18, 2023 12:21:24 GMT -5 Morgan said:

Your explanation was easy to follow and understand, and I thank you for that. Like most of us on this forum, I have a decent amount of money tied up in my system. People often ask me what kind of music do I listen to. My answer is always whatever is recorded well. I don't sing along or even bob my head as I'm listening to music. I'm listening for the complexity of the recording, the shuttle tang of a triangle, etc. I guess that makes me more into accuracy. I can play back a CD on my present system that produces minuet sounds usually played on back channels, that were unheard on my analog system. That leads me to ask, If you don't know if the sound is present, how can you adjust a system to hear it? Or, when do you stop "fine tuning" something when you don't know when the best end result is.
With all the environmental variables you mentioned plus all the reproduction equipment nuances to consider, I would go nuts trying to achieve what I would be able to consider as my preferred sound. So it's like one being partial to scotch instead of bourbon, or a blond over a redhead. I like scotch, redheads and accuracy when listening to music. Thanks for your time and your reply.

Do you listen to recordings from 2L, ChannelClassics, JustListen?  And I just discovered TRPTK and ImmersiveAudioAlbum for Atmos content.

[KeithL]

One thing I really envy about you classical music guys is that you have so many choices for a single piece of music...
Any given piece of classical music is usually available in hundreds of releases by dozens of orchestras and conductors...
(I would love to buy something from 2L... but they just don't have anything I listen to.)

In contrast, if you like a modern rock or pop group, you usually only get one go at each album...
(Or sometimes a second vinyl or high-res version... although usually from the same recording and mix.)

I'm personally a fan of accuracy...
And, while DACs do sound different, you have to listen a lot more carefully to hear those differences than you do to hear differences between phono cartridges.
A closer analogy there would be the differences between different turntables.
As with good DACs, a "properly functioning" turntable should impart no sound of its own, leaving little opportunity for audible differences between them.
(All a DAC should do is turn numbers into voltages; all a turntable should do is spin the record at the proper speed and hold the cartridge in the right place.)

May 18, 2023 12:36:52 GMT -5 marcl said:

May 18, 2023 12:21:24 GMT -5 Morgan said:

Your explanation was easy to follow and understand, and I thank you for that. Like most of us on this forum, I have a decent amount of money tied up in my system. People often ask me what kind of music do I listen to. My answer is always whatever is recorded well. I don't sing along or even bob my head as I'm listening to music. I'm listening for the complexity of the recording, the shuttle tang of a triangle, etc. I guess that makes me more into accuracy. I can play back a CD on my present system that produces minuet sounds usually played on back channels, that were unheard on my analog system. That leads me to ask, If you don't know if the sound is present, how can you adjust a system to hear it? Or, when do you stop "fine tuning" something when you don't know when the best end result is.
With all the environmental variables you mentioned plus all the reproduction equipment nuances to consider, I would go nuts trying to achieve what I would be able to consider as my preferred sound. So it's like one being partial to scotch instead of bourbon, or a blond over a redhead. I like scotch, redheads and accuracy when listening to music. Thanks for your time and your reply.

Do you listen to recordings from 2L, ChannelClassics, JustListen?  And I just discovered TRPTK and ImmersiveAudioAlbum for Atmos content.

[ken51]

I just got back into vinyl as I have about 100 albums leftover from when I sold my collection. I am not really a collector, but a listener. Most of my remaining records sound awful, not just wear and tear, but the recordings. They are lifeless. Examples: Jackson Browne, Late for the Sky. The Band, Stage Fright. Grateful Dead, America Beauty to name a few. Some sound great. Beck, Morning Phase. Suzanne Vega albums, Tracy Chapman debut record. I am using a $400 Music Hall TT with the installed cartridge. Comparing this to a comparable priced CD player without an external dac, the CDs sound better for the most part to me. The well recorded vinyls sound very pleasing, but to be comparable to the CDs, I would have to upgrade my cartridge. Which I probably will.

[Morgan]

I've discovered that I don't have enough patience to listen to classical music. I prefer to listen to recordings I'm already familiar with to see if I can discover anything I hadn't heard before. Louis Prima's - Sing,Sing,Sing (With a Swing) is about as classical as I get. My parents played that over and over again and so to play it now on a high end system is a whole new listening experience. One of my favorites from the past was Long Distance Runaround by Yes. Night and day difference from my analog system. The Doors Riders on the Storm is another example of suttle sounds. Even some Beetle's songs if found have someone striking a triangle in the background. Never heard it before recently.

Keith as a suggestion: Develop a system that would first give you a hearing test then the processor could adjust the various frequencies to the correct volume so that an aged ear can listen with accuracy once again. Kinda like what Direc does for room correction. Unfortunately it true that by the time you can afford a high end sound system your ears are to old to hear the higher price sounds.

[vcautokid]

Knowing a thing or two about tape and doing it for 15 minutes. dbx is a very powerful compander. Compressor expander. Like Dolby B,C, and S.

Everything has to be right. Bias, Eq, head azimuth. I had a Tandberg TCD-3014 and dbx ii noise reduction, and sounded amazing. My A&D 6300z has calibration facilities too, and does very well. The Nakamichi CR-3a likewise and the AD-F660 Aiwa. Noise reduction will not play nice till all the factors are right before it. Plain and simple.

[Morgan]

Not to beat a dead house but a few other things to consider: the cost of the media and the input device(s), plus media storage. With digital, I can buy the CD, use the disc reader in my computer to copy it to the hard drive, then recoup a portion of the cost by selling the CD.
So I have $0 equipment cost and a minimal media cost, were as with analog, input equipment and media collection cost can easily be many thousands of dollars. Plus the acquisition, maintenance, storage and retrieval efforts are considerably more with a physical media.

[Deleted]

This is one of the more honest and best worded examples of digital vs analog I've seen.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DVpv2f5WiI

For vinyl, I pretty much only have jazz and classic rock and a few sound tracks. For The Beatles, right or wrong, I will always prefer them on vinyl records to digital. I also have many Norah Jones albums that seem to sound better forever reason that I can't quantify or prove sound better. I just enjoy them more on vinyl. Aside from a few gifts, I always try and get 180/200gram vinyl. Even with Apple Lossless and a Cambridge Audio CXN (V2) with a hardwired network connection (I do stream most of the time), breaking out the right vinyl record is an experience that digital just can't reproduce.

On the flip side, I don't have and will never get a modern heavy dynamic recording on vinyl. I only have Daft Punk CDs and in my Apple Music collection. I am pretty picky about what I buy in vinyl and don't buy simply because it's vinyl.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2023 16:48:42 GMT -5 ken51 said:

I just got back into vinyl as I have about 100 albums leftover from when I sold my collection. I am not really a collector, but a listener. Most of my remaining records sound awful, not just wear and tear, but the recordings. They are lifeless. Examples: Jackson Browne, Late for the Sky. The Band, Stage Fright. Grateful Dead, America Beauty to name a few. Some sound great. Beck, Morning Phase. Suzanne Vega albums, Tracy Chapman debut record. I am using a $400 Music Hall TT with the installed cartridge. Comparing this to a comparable priced CD player without an external dac, the CDs sound better for the most part to me. The well recorded vinyls sound very pleasing, but to be comparable to the CDs, I would have to upgrade my cartridge. Which I probably will.

Before spending money on a different cartridge, get a gram scale and double check the tracking weight. You can also get free alignment tools from www.vinylengine.com/tools.shtml

Don't assume your TT is setup great just because things came pre-installed. Even if someone cared during manufacturing, things may have been bumped or changed during shipping.

Also make sure your TT is level. 

Vinyl is very picky about being static and dust free before each play. She's a cruel mistress that is over demanding in attention to details, but I don't believe it takes overly expensive equipment to have great results.