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
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.
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.
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.
I think it's the snobbish tone of your original post that caused any defensiveness.

There are probably more great sounding digital rigs out there than great sounding vinyl rigs even if the absolute best rigs are vinyl. It seems that Lp lovers have to frequently remind us that their preferred format is the best. People just get tired of hearing it. No offense intended, but you asked.
Personally, I fail to see anything remotely resembling "snobbish tone" in the original post.