2. analog
  3. 1239585005

Revisiting Digital?

Have you done more than consider going back to Digital? I have only put my toe into the analog world, and found it to be the lost "High End" format. SACD and DVD-A failed to gain acceptance as a next generation High Definition audio format (Weird Huh..) With more and more vinyl being printed each month, customers are voting with their dollars.

However, I have not been able to get over the snaps and pops associated with vinyl. I have bought too many new albums, only to have a high noise floor, and distract me from the experience.

If you have any of these feelings, and have tip toed back into digital, what did you consider for your digital system, knowing you have drank from the TurnTable Cup!

To be fair, my system is decidedly Mid-Fi, theater led. I have a NHT 2.9/AC2/HDP2 - Velodyne 1210x 5.1 system. I use a B&K 31/50 Processor, and a Parasound 2205at 5ch amp. It is nice for theater, and in two channel mode with my Denon 300f turntable/phonopre.

Your journey - thoughts are appreciated/welcomed.

Jeff
jbryngelson
paulfolbrecht
586 posts
 
I don't think it's resolution - cause I tried SACD for a while and it couldn't equal vinyl either.

I think it's jitter/noise/other issues that plague the A/D and D/A processes and I think we're a long way from fixing it.
jbryngelson OP
25 posts
 
This is my concern about turning my back on this "New" found high resolution format called RECORDS. I do love the musicality of Analog. Instruments sound like real instruments. But changing a record from side to side every few songs, the cleaning mess-trying to get a clean noiseless sound, is not optimal. What I am hearing is what I fear, I will not get the real sound from even a great digital system in 2009.

Bummer
johnnyb53
3,490 posts
 
04-13-09: Paulfolbrecht
I don't think it's resolution - cause I tried SACD for a while and it couldn't equal vinyl either.
SACD still can't touch analog in fine resolution. It's better than red book, but it's still not good enough.

There could be jitter and other noise issues as you mentioned, but I wonder if it doesn't come down to phase relationships. In an Absolute Sound forum, Bernie Grundman said that the one thing LPs do very well is preserve phase relationships, and that is essential for imaging, soundstage, and "hearing the room."

The thing I think is most important is how well a medium resolves tiny changes in amplitude. 16-bit red book has at best 64K increments of amplitude. At 2.7 Mhz sampling rate, I'm guessing SACD provides 2.7M increments of amplitude. 24-bit (as in DVD-A) provides 16M increments, which I think brings us closer than any of the other digital formats. 2.7 M increments simply isn't enough to replace the infinite amplitude resolution of analog. The 16M increments of 24-bit gets you about 80% of the way there in my estimation.
johnnyb53
3,490 posts
 
04-13-09: Jbryngelson
This is my concern about turning my back on this "New" found high resolution format called RECORDS. I do love the musicality of Analog. Instruments sound like real instruments. But changing a record from side to side every few songs, the cleaning mess-trying to get a clean noiseless sound, is not optimal.
If you want the magic of analog and long-playing convenience, try this labor-intensive, but inexpensive solution: Get ahold of any garden-variety VHS Hi-Fi machine. The blank tapes are still readily available. Record some of your LPs to a VHS tape. You should be able to fit 6 or 7 albums on a single tape at ELP speed.

VHS Hi-Fi is an analog medium that has 20-20K response and an S/N of 90-96 dB. What do you have to lose but a little time? Maybe it's your solution, especially for parties or relaxation. A wire-to-wire transfer also avoids the compromises of in-room feedback at higher volumes.
paulfolbrecht
586 posts
 
Johnnyb53,

It could well come down to phase - and/or several other things too, as suggested.

I just don't think that resolution is a big part at all of what's 'wrong' with digital because the fact is that it just can't get things like instrument tonalities (completely) correct and that has nothing to do with resolution.

Every time I get 'acclimated' to my digital (which, again, is damn good, frankly), and then I spin vinyl, I am amazed at how truer the tonalities of horn instruments are and how much better the instrument separation.

And, the low-res redbook on my Audio Note DAC is really superior to any high-res digital I've heard. Whatever benefits the higher res provides either come with related weaknesses (high-freq noise from higher sampling rate?) or are just not very significant in relation to the other factors that make or break digital sound.
More to discover