Sounds more analog

jdandy said:
I wonder why digital television doesn't get the same pounding that digital sound does? Picture and sound used to be analog. It's digital now or nothing.
Click to expand...

That's because of the FCC - they mandated digital. Film still looks better to me than digital video.
 
jdandy said:
I wonder why digital television doesn't get the same pounding that digital audio does? TV picture and sound used to be analog. It's digital TV now or nothing. A high resolution picture is universally praised. High resolution digital audio gets nitpicked to the bone on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

I suppose one needs a system of a certain quality to be able to hear the improvements of hi-res over CD.
With TV, it's obvious. A Full HD (or 4K) video is way better than standard resolution video (DVD), even on the cheapest large screen TV.

Just as audiphiles can argue about PCM vs DSD, videophiles can argue about different technologies for projection, or LCD vs OLED vs (dead) Plasma, etc.
 
Okay, let me take a stab at answering my own question. "Sounds more analog" to me means what I am hearing fools me well enough to temporarily suspend the analytical part of my brain that wants to nitpick the reproduced sound. "Sounds more analog" means the musical performance from a sound system captures my complete attention in such a way the performance as a whole creates a sense of living, holographic reality, dramatically reducing the level of imagination required to experience complete immersion in the event. For me, "sounds more analog" is also about feelings that overcome my physical being, causing muscles to relax while reducing my defense of space and time that holds me back from being swept up in the moment without reservation. Live music does the same thing to me, so when I experience these sensations and emotions from my sound system I believe I can define the moment as "sounds more analog".

This is not an uncommon experience for me with my sound system, and the suspension of reality with reproduced music has not been limited to one particular recording medium. So much has to do with the quality of the original recording, the mix and mastering, and the care in pressing both vinyl and/or CD's. My turntable and phono cartridge have delivered some spectacular performances in my room. So has my digital rig. Advances on all fronts have raised the bar substantially for all of us. As audio enthusiasts, we are living in a wonderful time.
 
Mike said:
Dan - if people have a reference for what they think analog sounds like (years living with a TT, R2R, etc.), than they know the organic nature of analog sounds.
Click to expand...

Aah, organic sound, "fluidity". I get the argument, but I think it is misplaced. Often when I go to concerts of live unamplified music, I don't find it particularly "fluid" sounding (in some venues, yes). That's the problem with the whole analog vs. digital debate: it never had (unamplified) live music, i.e., the real thing, as reference. The debate should have been: analog vs. digital vs. live music. But it wasn't.

In the absence of a reliable arbiter, live unamplified music, it all comes down to plain preference, which is not a very useful basis for a) a discussion, b) informing one's tastes of reproduction.

I also hear complaints about the hardness and bite of digital, particularly PCM digital. Well, live music often does sound hard, especially the brass. Audiophiles have long complained about digital harshness, yet while this is an electronic artifact and should have no place in reproduction, they have often overlooked that, in the absence of this artifact, great digital replay is very strong in its ability to reproduce the natural hardness of (unamplified) live music. Rather, they complain about the 'hard' sound. I got news for you: real music often does sound hard. Great PCM digital just happens to do it justice.

Curiously, the better vinyl replay gets, the better it also is able to reproduce natural hardness and bite, at least on high-quality pressings (the 'smooth' sound of less than top analog is actually a deficiency to my ears).

What I find most interesting is in speaking with younger audiophiles who frankly, did not grow up with R2R's and TT's. Their foundation for sound is rooted in some other sonic characteristic. For example, I have sent many "analog" sounding DAC's (Lampi, Lumin A1, etc.) to some younger audiophiles to demo and their feedback is usually, "yuck, sounds mushy", "why is the bass so flabby?" or "why is the top end is so rolled off?"
Click to expand...

Again, without live unamplified music as reference, those discussions are somewhat meaningless. Hint: the R2R and TT guys aren't always right either.

I do, however, agree that digital often is less able than analog to reproduce the natural richness of sound. Saxophone reproduction is a particular offender. Analog has few problems with that, while digital often is lacking (mine too). However, it can be done: the newer dCS gear (Rossini, Vivaldi) is spectacular with tenor and baritone sax on the right recordings -- even from Redbook CD. From the dCS Vivaldi I also have heard the best triangle sound I have ever experienced from sound reproduction -- again, on Redbook CD (actually, it was a Reference Recordings HDCD, but the Vivaldi, lacking the decoding, played it back as Redbook CD). Wasn't Redbook CD supposed to have problems with the resolution of high frequencies?
 
Mike, I like the way you describe analog. I find it to be more liquid and natural sounding. The music flows. No digititis for lack of a better term.

I have an audiophile friend in his very early 30's who heard vinyl for the first time at my home with my very modest TT and phono preamp. I played a pristine recording and after 30 seconds he said that he got it and understood what the difference between digital and analog was. He fell in love with vinyl and wants to buy his first TT.

With that being said. I am using 2 versions of Bug Head music player (8.04 and 8.05) that has a natural sound setting. I have to tell you. It gives vinyl a run for the money in sounding analog. The guy that makes this program is a genius.
 
I hold firm to the notion that the real key to superior audio reproduction comes from high quality recordings captured on first rate equipment, followed by experienced and talented mixing and mastering from individuals who have a complete understanding of how to preserve dynamics with minimal compression. There are some recording companies that consistently outperform their peers in the industry on both vinyl and digital recordings. I am not a person who clings to one recording medium over another. My experience has demonstrated that great recorded performances don't have to be format dependent to be involving and satisfying. I listen to LP's, CD's, SACD's, digital high-res downloads, and reel to reel tape. Lately I have even been enjoying my HiFi subscription to Tidal. Last night I streamed Vangelis - Rosetta and was astonished with the quality of the sound.
 
For me quality is identity degree (changes) analog at output to analog at input.

Currently, didital systems out of competition by noise/distortion level that added to original.

Any mechanical parts in a system decrease precision of sound transfer. Of course, it may add some nice feature of sound. But it is not fidelity as fidelity.

But even digital systems is not "natural" now. Because secret of "naturalbess" is not only distortion degree and also don't contains in analog sound advantage over digital.
 
Al M. said:
That's the problem with the whole analog vs. digital debate: it never had (unamplified) live music, i.e., the real thing, as reference. The debate should have been: analog vs. digital vs. live music. But it wasn't.
Click to expand...

I find that argument difficult to hold, as nowadays lots of the live music is amplified. This goes already into a differentiation between genres. Amplified live music is also the real thing in e.g. rock or pop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
I find that argument difficult to hold, as nowadays lots of the live music is amplified. This goes already into a differentiation between genres. Amplified live music is also the real thing in e.g. rock or pop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That this argument is difficult to hold is an odd argument, in my view. Unamplified live music is the only reliable reference -- almost all of classical is unamplified, and lots of jazz too.

If you classify amplified live music as the real thing for sound reference, then perhaps you should install a PA system your room, rather than a high-end system. That will get you closer to 'the real thing' than the system you probably have.
 
jdandy said:
High resolution digital audio gets nitpicked to the bone on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
By a tiny fringe, talking among themselves, circular fashion and well insulated.

Outside the bubble, in the real world, life goes on...

cheers,

AJ
 
Al M. said:
That this argument is difficult to hold is an odd argument, in my view. Unamplified live music is the only reliable reference -- almost all of classical is unamplified, and lots of jazz too.

If you classify amplified live music as the real thing for sound reference, then perhaps you should install a PA system your room, rather than a high-end system. That will get you closer to 'the real thing' than the system you probably have.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are factually mistaken, if I you are suggesting acoustic music is the only reliable reference. I am just pointing out the limitation in your argument, as a lots of music is amplified in its original form (e.g. electric guitar, hammond organ, pretty much any synth etc.).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I can enjoy both because they are both analog audibly and I'm too busy listening to the music, not staring at something spinning, etc.
Doubt it's me that needs to see the shrink, about issues with one or the other.

cheers,

AJ
 
Kuoppis said:
Unfortunately you are factually mistaken, if I you are suggesting acoustic music is the only reliable reference. I am just pointing out the limitation in your argument, as a lots of music is amplified in its original form (e.g. electric guitar, hammond organ, pretty much any synth etc.).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

While it is true that a lot of music is amplified in its original form, it cannot serve as reference unless you know how it sounded in its original. That is hard to do.

With unamplified instruments that is much easier. While you cannot know the exact sound of let's say, a trumpet, violin, cello, clarinet or sax at the time it was actually recorded, it becomes clear from extensive exposure to unamplified live music that, while there is a significant range of possible sounds from these instruments (depending on acoustics, distance from listener etc.), that range is still limited. Anything supposed to sound believable must fall within that range. If it falls outside that range, due to artifacts in the reproduction, this can be detected with some experience. In many cases, easily so.
 
D'Accord, well put. You certainly have to know how the original sounds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Al M. said:
Define 'natural'.
Click to expand...

That is difficult to explain fully because some much of it is a feeling. SOME of the things that I attribute to natural sound are that it has a smoother more liquid sound with out being etched, grainy, without glare, falsely detailed, less fatigue. There is something about the tone and harmonics that sound better. I hesitate to say live sounding but in some ways it is.

Don't get me wrong, digital can sound great and most of my listening is in the digital realm. But I have striven to make my digital end to be as analog sounding as possible.
 
what is a natural sound reference for me?

for classical music: in the concert hall, sitting in the middle of row 5-20, eyes closed and listening.

real analog to me is more than just the LP - it's also the "old-style" recording - instead of multi-channel recording.

and everytime I compare an "end-of-60" decca recording with a modern recording, to me it's obvious what is more realistic compared to the original in the concert hall.

but that's only my personal preference... :)
 
tube-vds said:
what is a natural sound reference for me?

for classical music: in the concert hall, sitting in the middle of row 5-20, eyes closed and listening.

real analog to me is more than just the LP - it's also the "old-style" recording - instead of multi-channel recording.

and everytime I compare an "end-of-60" decca recording with a modern recording, to me it's obvious what is more realistic compared to the original in the concert hall.

but that's only my personal preference... :)
Click to expand...

The irony is that 2 channels, digital or worse, analog, can't possibly sound like what you hear in a concert hall, because the information isn't there. People spend vast sums on 2ch equipment while remaining ignorant of basic facts of the (pardon pun) soundfield.
This explains it well http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136
A bit more here too: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/acoustics-hearing.htm

2ch hobby is merely a frontal rendering preference fest, analog or digital, neither remotely approaching the real thing.

cheers,

AJ
 
try this:

album "behind the gardens" from Andreas Vollenweider.

first track. first 30 seconds. the laughing lady comes from the right back side of the room and then moves forward to the center.

cheers.

VDS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top