[James Tanner]

Despite being in and out of vinyl twice now, I begrudgingly concede that vinyl is superior in sound quality. I recently went over to a friend's house, and we compared a Lampizator L7 to his analog rig, and it wasn't even close. As great as the L7 sounded in his system, the analog was just that much better. I always get to a point where I miss the sound of analog so much that I mistakenly get back into the game.

With only having a limited amount of time to listen to music, and a small house with no storage space, I inevitably end up getting back out of it. I do enjoy the convenience of digital, and it can sound great.

Hi

This is interesting - what do you think Analog does better than Digital and vice versa?

james

[Elizabeth]

Hi

This is interesting - what do you think Analog does better than Digital and vice versa?

james

I do not think one is better than the other. What I think is some folks have listening PREFERENCES and things within the music which one format can show 'better' than the other.

(In the same way some folks just love tubes, and other have no use for 'tubes' in their system.)

What each of us listen To and FOR within music varies.
I can say I must have perfect treble. I pay a LOT of money for it.
Bass? I could care less.. I have no need for 'perfect' bass. In fact I hate chest thumping bass. So for me average adequate bass is like no problem at all.
I also have no concern about 'soundstage. for my own reasons.  nor room speaker interactions. I am just not worried about a perfect response across the audio band.
Some folks totally different notions of what is important.

As for analog vs digital: For me it is pretty much what is easier. CD is WAY WAY easier to use than LP. both for handling and LENGTH of time between messing with.
LP is every 20 to 30 minutes. pulling out the LP, checking how clean. vacuuming. wiping the stylus, setting the arm. flipping the LP.. over and over. To stop have to turn off TT, put on cover..
CD, get five CDS. wipe them off as I insert. Play for five to six hours.. turn off. one button done.

also a comment on another prior post:
When I read someone mentioning the detail of CD as better? LOL Sorry, I can find that amazing detail in LPs too.  So IMO that is not a difference.
Though on the cheap end of the equipment range, CD may appear to have more detail than LP.

My LP playback is way more expensive than my CD.
LP Kuzma Stabi/Sogi S with speed box, Dynavector 17D3, and a Audio Research Sp-15 I use just for it's wonderful tubed phono section. So all this is retail $11,000... In reality I got the ARC SP-15 Initially for $1,500, but after several trades, free.), the Kuzma used locally for $2,400, and the cart for $900. LOL
My digital is retail a third of that. And cost me like $1,000 for most of it, then $1,700 for a demo SCD777ES
 

[CanadianMaestro]

I have always searched for the right words to describe the seductive appeal of the sound of good vinyl playback. But I can't. Somebody help me. Vinyl does sound good. Forget the Rice Krispies factoid. We learn to listen past that.

In the end, though, I always find myself going back to digital playback on my system (which is not perfect in any way). I crave the detail and accuracy of well-recorded CDs and music files ("hi-res") -- bass extension, treble texture, etc. Digital has all of that, and then some. I couldn't enjoy musik fully without both media types, vinyl + digital. Two "worlds", I think, both complementary -- bit like Ying and Yang?

If the goal of hi-perf audio is to bring us as close to a live perf as possible, then all of those characteristics mentioned before (soundstage, freq range, etc) do matter. I don't think that's a matter of personal taste per se. I think they are prerequisites if one's goal in building a system is the stated goal of hi-perf audio boldfaced above.

[kingdeezie]

Hi

This is interesting - what do you think Analog does better than Digital and vice versa?

james

The common misconception I generally hear, is that vinyl is inherently warmer, but in my experience that's inaccurate. I've heard analog set ups that are horribly bright, and tonally cold.

When done correctly though, vinyl has this amazing "see through" quality to my ears. Like the proverbial window has been removed, and I can hear into the recording.

Digital gets close, but regardless of whatever jitter reducing mechanism, cabling, conditioning, etc, I use, it always has a subtle layer of "haze." A sound that, while a matter of some small degree, proves to be a huge detriment to the sum of the whole.

Digital is more accessible, and obviously has better technical potential, but for some reason, hasn't been able to reproduce music with the same quality for me.

[OzarkTom]

+1   

And the beat goes on, ever since the mid 80's.

[G Georgopoulos]

This could be quite interesting if we discuss the pros and cons of the technologies technically as James suggested.

[BobRex]

Not sure how many. I will say this. A lot of the classical LPs I listen to sound inferior to my digital versions from CD or from "hi-res" -- I can hear instruments that are very low in volume, whereas these soft sounds are obscured in the vinyl version. Same with vocalists. For me, that's dynamic range. But I agree with your point. Not many recordings/equipment take full advantage of the theoretical DR available, and also, human hearing may be limited within the theoretical max DR.

Only so much that one can accomplish before distortion etc kick in.

Well technically that's more inner detail than dynamic range.  Without knowing what recordings you are comparing, I can't be certain, but there are a number of ways to increase inner detail.  Closer miking is one.  Another way to increase inner detail is to compress the signal so that the quieter sections are boosted by a couple of dB.  If the compression is done right, it's hardly noticeable.   Yes, even classical digital recordings can have compression.  This is what I'm getting at: I have a number of symphonic CDs that are compressed.  Most people couldn't handle the true dynamic range of an orchestra in their living room.  The sound is miniaturized, not only in size, but also in scale.

Back in the '80s I compared Telarc vinyl and CD releases of the same recording - Copeland's Fanfare if memory serves.  Guess what, the dynamic envelope was essentially the same.  Yes, the CD was quieter, but signal wise, they were the same.

[Randy]

Well technically that's more inner detail than dynamic range.  Without knowing what recordings you are comparing, I can't be certain, but there are a number of ways to increase inner detail.  Closer miking is one.  Another way to increase inner detail is to compress the signal so that the quieter sections are boosted by a couple of dB.  If the compression is done right, it's hardly noticeable.   Yes, even classical digital recordings can have compression.  This is what I'm getting at: I have a number of symphonic CDs that are compressed.  Most people couldn't handle the true dynamic range of an orchestra in their living room.  The sound is miniaturized, not only in size, but also in scale.

Back in the '80s I compared Telarc vinyl and CD releases of the same recording - Copeland's Fanfare if memory serves.  Guess what, the dynamic envelope was essentially the same.  Yes, the CD was quieter, but signal wise, they were the same.

Telarc Lps were issued in horrible pressings back then, almost unlistenable, so how could you tell?

[CanadianMaestro]

Well technically that's more inner detail than dynamic range.  Without knowing what recordings you are comparing, I can't be certain, but there are a number of ways to increase inner detail.  Closer miking is one.  Another way to increase inner detail is to compress the signal so that the quieter sections are boosted by a couple of dB.  If the compression is done right, it's hardly noticeable.   Yes, even classical digital recordings can have compression.  This is what I'm getting at: I have a number of symphonic CDs that are compressed.  Most people couldn't handle the true dynamic range of an orchestra in their living room.  The sound is miniaturized, not only in size, but also in scale.

Back in the '80s I compared Telarc vinyl and CD releases of the same recording - Copeland's Fanfare if memory serves.  Guess what, the dynamic envelope was essentially the same.  Yes, the CD was quieter, but signal wise, they were the same.

Symphonies are the hardest to get right on disc (or any other medium). It's a very high bar to set, for assessing high fidelity.

[Stercom]

I couldn't enjoy musik fully without both media types, vinyl + digital. Two "worlds", I think, both complementary -- bit like Ying and Yang?

Unfortunately, we try to make the world too black and white: there must always has to be a winner and a loser.  It's a competition.  I get enough of that at work. Music is where I try to forget all that. 

[OzarkTom]

This digital challenge dates back to 1984 with the Linn CEO Ivor Tiefenbrun
that just  knew he could tell 100% of the time between digital and analogue.

Well, he was 50% right.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

When I was a dealer in the 80's and 90's, all of my customers failed 100% of the time, and I was only using a $400 Scott Nixon modded Magnavox CD  player. The analogue I used cost over $3K.

[smargo]

I do not think one is better than the other. What I think is some folks have listening PREFERENCES and things within the music which one format can show 'better' than the other.

agreed! - some recordings i prefer the digital version - some on the tuntable - it seems there is no rhyme or reason

too me -  the actual recording has to be good - if its not i cant listen to it either digitally or on a turntable

[Wind Chaser]

And the beat goes on, ever since the mid 80's.

I blame TAS for that. The whole analogue digital debate is much ado about nothing.

[OzarkTom]

I blame TAS for that. The whole analogue digital debate is much ado about nothing.

I had a real funny experience at the CES show one year. Three of the top TAS reviewers and I were in a room comparing digital and analogue. To their dismay, they picked the digital $1K Cal Labs CD player over an expensive $4k VTL turntable, arm, and cartridge. I  had a good laugh.

[AJinFLA]

I had a real funny experience at the CES show one year. Three of the top TAS reviewers and I were in a room comparing digital and analogue. To their dismay, they picked the digital $1K Cal Labs CD player over an expensive $4k VTL turntable, arm, and cartridge. I  had a good laugh.

10x funnier is to do the only valid way to compare "digital" to "analog". Run a parallel output off the turntable, tape, etc through an ADC/DAC, compare level matched output vs original.
Look on analog proponent faces when they can't tell difference....priceless 

[Early B.]

You old guys grew up on vinyl, so you're gonna have a nostalgic bias towards the undefinable "vinyl sound." That's understandable. Personally, I haven't heard a vinyl system that sounded better than digital, even the mega-dollar systems at audio shows.   

[CanadianMaestro]

10x funnier is to do the only valid way to compare "digital" to "analog". Run a parallel output off the turntable, tape, etc through an ADC/DAC, compare level matched output vs original.
Look on analog proponent faces when they can't tell difference....priceless 

Right on. 

[bacobits1]

It will depend on the DAC you are using in the comparison.
Can be real close here. It is what it is and you are at the mercy of the recording and the software anyway.

[Bendingwave]

10x funnier is to do the only valid way to compare "digital" to "analog". Run a parallel output off the turntable, tape, etc through an ADC/DAC, compare level matched output vs original.
Look on analog proponent faces when they can't tell difference....priceless 

So if one cant tell the difference one should just go with the cheaper product?

[CanadianMaestro]

So if one cant tell the difference one should just go with the cheaper product?

Almost always, digital.

Compare price of digital vs. vinyl recordings.