2. analog
  3. 1233960667

More convinced of analog than ever

Wednesday night I went to my local high end shop's "Music Matters" open house, which featured six meticulously set up listening rooms highlighting the best and brightest offerings from Wilson, Transparent, Audio Research, Ayre, Magnepan, Peachtree, B&W, Classe, Rotel, etc., with factory reps to introduce their products and innovations.

There were unmistakable improvements in reproduction of redbook CD, with jitter reduced to near zero, and holographic reproduction of images, soundstages, and the minute signals that indicate instrument resonance and hall ambience.

And yet... and yet... when the demos shifted from redbook to the new downloadable hi-rez digital formats in 24/88.2 and 24/96, there was an unmistakable jump in resolution around the edges of the notes, of sounds swelling, resonating, and decaying, of greater verisimilitude.

But compared to the turntable demos, I'd say the 24-bit digital got me about 80% there, whereas LP playback closed the gap completely. Once the LPs started spinning, there was a collective relaxed "aaaahhh" that went through the audience. It wasn't because of dynamic compression. Far from it, the Ayre prototype turntable was strikingly dynamic with a subterranean noise floor.

The sense of ease and relaxation I attribute to a sudden drop in listener fatigue. The LP-source music had so much more of what makes music musical. We didn't have to work nearly as hard to rectify the ear-brain connection as with even the best of 24-bit digital, which was still significantly better than redbook. The redbook playback always reminded me that I was listening to "hi-fi," even when played through multi-thousand dollar players from ARC and Ayre.

Even my local Brit-oriented Rega/Naim dealer asserts that the latest CD players rival or exceed LP playback.

I say nay.

What say you?
johnnyb53
chadeffect
586 posts
 
I wonder when this debate will finally die? I am guessing soon.

Digital is getting better almost every year. Not to say analogue has not got better too, but at this rate analogue will be confined to the history books quite soon with only the most stubborn of old audiophiles staying with it.

Name anyone under the age of 25 who is interested in a TT. The ipod generation will laugh at you with your room full of LPs or think it quaint.
And while the analogue brigade will laugh at the ipod generation they wont be laughing for long. Its called progress. All this stuff will trickle down into 1 chip that costs nothing and has staggering sound quality. Downloads will be uncompressed at the sample rate it was recorded at. None of the dithering to 44.1k and so on.

We have reached a point where sonically all the analogue colorations you like can be modeled anyway in the digital domain. The latest offerings in the pro world are amazing. The control is precise and totally transparent.

I dont understand why it seems you are either for digital or analogue. Who cares? If it sounds good it sounds good.

Of course I understand toys for the boys, but surely we all want music to be played back with the highest possible life like quality, with no hassles, and on demand. The rest is BS and posturing.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,333 posts
 
Never said that, never meant to imply that.

Then I suggest you re-read your initial post starting from the title "More convinced of Analog than ever" with its description of how you heard the latest best possible digital has to offer and found it wanting and fatiguing.

But if I'm honest with myself about how I feel when I listen to music, I prefer the sound of LP playback.

At least be honest with yourself about what you imply in your own statements.
brauser
421 posts
 
I am convinced that analog hangs in there for basically two reasons. First, it can sound amazingly good in a best case scenario when everything in the system is properly addressed. Secondly, analog can 'look awesome' with these over-the-top turntables, J-Corders, record cleaners, etc. I suppose I should also add that audiophiles may have large collections of LPs and Reel tapes. Bottom line though is the question of overall absolute performance being on the analog or digital side?? My experience is that DIGITAL IS BEST because of the fact that analog is always fighting a losing war with signal-to-noise. Playing an album degrades it some no matter what the circumstanes. Same thing for reel tape or any other analog storage medium. Age, dust, humidity, light, human touch; you name it and it takes it's toll on analog. Not so with Digital where the thousandth playing is basically as good as the first. And the first can be essentially equal or better than that of analog at the starting point short of master tapes and direct-to-disk LPs and a penchant for spending your inheritance on a dying technology.
johnnyb53 OP
3,490 posts
 
02-07-09: Chadeffect
I wonder when this debate will finally die? I am guessing soon.

Digital is getting better almost every year... at this rate analogue will be
confined to the history books quite soon with only the most stubborn of old
audiophiles staying with it.

02-07-09: Shadorne
Then I suggest you re-read your initial post starting from the title
"More convinced of Analog than ever" with its description of how
you heard the latest best possible digital has to offer and found it wanting
and fatiguing.

02-07-09: Brauser
I am convinced that analog hangs in there for ... two reasons. First, it can
sound amazingly good in a best case scenario when everything in the system
is properly addressed. Secondly, analog can 'look awesome' with these over-
the-top turntables, J-Corders, record cleaners, etc. I suppose I should also
add that audiophiles may have large collections of LPs and Reel tapes. Bottom
line though is the question of overall absolute performance being on the
analog or digital side?? My experience is that DIGITAL IS
BEST...
I posted this in the Analog forum because I
was relating a subjective experience to like-minded individuals. So why are
digiphiles responding with such vehemence--to set the rest of us straight?

What's your point, really? It's subjective. Sound reproduction is imperfect and
we all respond in our own ways to the parts of the reproduction that are
significant to us. My experiences do not fit the oversimplified amateur
psychology theories expressed here. As I said before, I listened to digital
exclusively for 20 years. I had no big LP collection to protect as I'd lost it in a
flood 30 years ago. My "impressive rig" is a Technics DD
turntable. All the wiping and cleaning and dusting and prepping, and jumping
up every 20 minutes to change sides is counter to my personality. But I do it
for one reason: a lot of digital-sourced music sets my teeth on edge and LPs
don't. The one exception in my house is ALC-encoded CDs played on my
iPod Touch. Those don't irritate me, but they still don't match the way I
respond to LP.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
02-07-09: Johnnyb53
I posted this in the Analog forum because I was relating a subjective experience to like-minded individuals. So why are digiphiles responding with such vehemence--to set the rest of us straight?

Generally, new topics just appear lumped together in a list.

As a result, I believe people just respond to the topic without paying any attention to the particular forum into which a topic is posted.
More to discover