Why is it that reviewers and almost everybody else for that matter, when they want to describe a piece of equipment that sounds good, almost always say "analogue like" as a reference point. Further references to an analogue type sound are "warm"and "life like". Does this then mean that "analogue" is the reference for good quality sound and that all digital sources must aspire to this standard. Why bother with digital then, everyone should simply buy a turntable and we will all enjoy "analogue like" sound.
Analogue superiority
- Thread starter Sabby
- Start date
Sabby:Why is it that reviewers and almost everybody else for that matter, when they want to describe a piece of equipment that sounds good, almost always say "analogue like" as a reference point. Further references to an analogue type sound are "warm"and "life like". Does this then mean that "analogue" is the reference for good quality sound and that all digital sources must aspire to this standard. Why bother with digital then, everyone should simply buy a turntable and we will all enjoy "analogue like" sound.
i think this goes back to the early days of digital when many cds and cd players were more about showing off the ability of the new format than being pleasant to listen to
the sound was cold and hard compared to vinyl and this legacy at least in reviews and advertising carries on but your right its not really necessary to say analogue like any more
i think this goes back to the early days of digital when many cds and cd players were more about showing off the ability of the new format than being pleasant to listen to
the sound was cold and hard compared to vinyl and this legacy at least in reviews and advertising carries on but your right its not really necessary to say analogue like any more
I agree Andrew, we can only hear analogue sounds. The human voice, musical instruments all operate in the analogue domain. Digital has to be converted back into analogue before we can hear it. My question is why convert analogue sound into digital and then back into analogue? Why not leave it in the analogue format so there is no need for conversion from one format to another. Surely there has to be a degree of sound degradation when converting from analogue to digital and then back to analogue?
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2010
- 510
- 94
- 18,970
Personally I find the description useful...plus isn't sounding analogue the goal of a good digital source.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
Sabby:My question is why convert analogue sound into digital and then back into analogue? Why not leave it in the analogue format so there is no need for conversion from one format to another. Surely there has to be a degree of sound degradation when converting from analogue to digital and then back to analogue?
Yes there is some degradation.
But (even with most vinyl LPs pressed after the late 1970s) digitisation - somewhere in the recording/playback chain - is unavoidable.
Yes there is some degradation.
But (even with most vinyl LPs pressed after the late 1970s) digitisation - somewhere in the recording/playback chain - is unavoidable.
I think it's quality vs ease of use. It's in the human nature to
like easy things. Ofcourse vinyl sounds better (and I am a fan) but not
everyone wants to carry 20 LP's to their friend to listen, whereas 20
CD's are much easier to carry. Not everyone wants to make place in
their room/ home to store big LP's.
It would be the same to ask
why do microwave meals exist? (well) Cooked meals are certainly better?
Why bother? Because we humans are willing to sacrifice some quality for
ease of use (sometimes). Some to a bigger extent than others, but it's
in our nature.
Still as human beings we also like to dream. That's why the microwave meals are much better than say like 5 years ago. Ultimately we'd love to have microwave meals taste as good (or better) and be as healthy as well cooked meals. Same when someone had a dream a long time ago that the lightweight little silver shiny disc can sound as good as big black pancake like vinyl. We might never get there but still it's nice to try (as long there is a market for it needless to say).
OK I admit it I work in a restaurant...
like easy things. Ofcourse vinyl sounds better (and I am a fan) but not
everyone wants to carry 20 LP's to their friend to listen, whereas 20
CD's are much easier to carry. Not everyone wants to make place in
their room/ home to store big LP's.
It would be the same to ask
why do microwave meals exist? (well) Cooked meals are certainly better?
Why bother? Because we humans are willing to sacrifice some quality for
ease of use (sometimes). Some to a bigger extent than others, but it's
in our nature.
Still as human beings we also like to dream. That's why the microwave meals are much better than say like 5 years ago. Ultimately we'd love to have microwave meals taste as good (or better) and be as healthy as well cooked meals. Same when someone had a dream a long time ago that the lightweight little silver shiny disc can sound as good as big black pancake like vinyl. We might never get there but still it's nice to try (as long there is a market for it needless to say).
OK I admit it I work in a restaurant...
Analog is not the same as vinyl of course. Further development of analog effectively stopped with the introduction of digital (not only cd but also in recording), and records are an antique invention. It is feasible that with modern technology a new analog format could be developed, but there is no market for it now (especially not in an internet age). So here we are: there is a clumsy and outdated analog medium, vinyl, with its afficionado's, and a mainstream digital medium, redbook cd (low sample rate/depth, no error correction, all due to the limitations at the time of introduction), also outdated, that both should have been superseded by better options. The better options for cd all failed, the future is probably hq digital audio through the internet.
One interesting aspect that comes to my mind: suppose that an analog (vinyl) signal is recorded digitally at eg 192kHz/24bit - would the result sound 'analog'? At some point the digitalization should become indistinguishable from the source, I'd say..
Anyway, it is surpirsing that it all still sounds so good
. Enjoy!
One interesting aspect that comes to my mind: suppose that an analog (vinyl) signal is recorded digitally at eg 192kHz/24bit - would the result sound 'analog'? At some point the digitalization should become indistinguishable from the source, I'd say..
Anyway, it is surpirsing that it all still sounds so good
fatboyslimfast
Well-known member
- Jan 10, 2008
- 158
- 0
- 18,590
The other problem, is that without highly expensive equipment (both for recording and playback), wholly analogue systems do suffer from noise - hiss in the case of tapes and static / scratches / fluff in the case of vinyl - that can be intrusive and not easy to eradicate.
Digital playback doesn't suffer from these specific issues, but brings its own issues to the party.
I think the future for the mainstream is definitely digital (as it's more than good enough for the populace), but analogue will continue on as a purist's/enthusiasts choice.
You pays your money etc...
Digital playback doesn't suffer from these specific issues, but brings its own issues to the party.
I think the future for the mainstream is definitely digital (as it's more than good enough for the populace), but analogue will continue on as a purist's/enthusiasts choice.
You pays your money etc...
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
SlickenSmooth:
I think it's quality vs ease of use. It's in the human nature to
like easy things. Ofcourse vinyl sounds better (and I am a fan) but not
everyone wants to carry 20 LP's to their friend to listen, whereas 20
CD's are much easier to carry. Not everyone wants to make place in
their room/ home to store big LP's.
It would be the same to ask
why do microwave meals exist? (well) Cooked meals are certainly better?
Why bother? Because we humans are willing to sacrifice some quality for
ease of use (sometimes). Some to a bigger extent than others, but it's
in our nature.
Still as human beings we also like to dream. That's why the microwave meals are much better than say like 5 years ago. Ultimately we'd love to have microwave meals taste as good (or better) and be as healthy as well cooked meals. Same when someone had a dream a long time ago that the lightweight little silver shiny disc can sound as good as big black pancake like vinyl. We might never get there but still it's nice to try (as long there is a market for it needless to say).
OK I admit it I work in a restaurant...
I'm sorry but I disagree with this completely. Are you categorically stating that vinyl sounds better than CD? I beg to differ. Sure, some genres, reggae springs to mind, can sound better with a more earthy raw sound from vinyl but most genres, I'm not so sure. Your comparison with microwave meals is way off beam.
I think it's quality vs ease of use. It's in the human nature to
like easy things. Ofcourse vinyl sounds better (and I am a fan) but not
everyone wants to carry 20 LP's to their friend to listen, whereas 20
CD's are much easier to carry. Not everyone wants to make place in
their room/ home to store big LP's.
It would be the same to ask
why do microwave meals exist? (well) Cooked meals are certainly better?
Why bother? Because we humans are willing to sacrifice some quality for
ease of use (sometimes). Some to a bigger extent than others, but it's
in our nature.
Still as human beings we also like to dream. That's why the microwave meals are much better than say like 5 years ago. Ultimately we'd love to have microwave meals taste as good (or better) and be as healthy as well cooked meals. Same when someone had a dream a long time ago that the lightweight little silver shiny disc can sound as good as big black pancake like vinyl. We might never get there but still it's nice to try (as long there is a market for it needless to say).
OK I admit it I work in a restaurant...
I'm sorry but I disagree with this completely. Are you categorically stating that vinyl sounds better than CD? I beg to differ. Sure, some genres, reggae springs to mind, can sound better with a more earthy raw sound from vinyl but most genres, I'm not so sure. Your comparison with microwave meals is way off beam.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
Gerrardasnails:
I'm sorry but I disagree with this completely. Are you categorically stating that vinyl sounds better than CD? I beg to differ.
Well, WHF member 'True Blue' is a recent convert to vinyl and is - in no uncertain terms - prefering it to his Rega Saturn CD player.
I can only imagine what he would think if he had bought a price-comparable turntable (£898) instead of my Rega P2 !
Vinyl or CD superiority IS a matter of dispute/opinion/taste and - definitely - not something anyone can be categoric about.
I'm sorry but I disagree with this completely. Are you categorically stating that vinyl sounds better than CD? I beg to differ.
Well, WHF member 'True Blue' is a recent convert to vinyl and is - in no uncertain terms - prefering it to his Rega Saturn CD player.
I can only imagine what he would think if he had bought a price-comparable turntable (£898) instead of my Rega P2 !
Vinyl or CD superiority IS a matter of dispute/opinion/taste and - definitely - not something anyone can be categoric about.
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
chebby:
Gerrardasnails:
I'm sorry but I disagree with this completely. Are you categorically stating that vinyl sounds better than CD? I beg to differ.
Well, WHF member 'True Blue' is a recent convert to vinyl and is - in no uncertain terms - prefering it to his Rega Saturn CD player.
I can only imagine what he would think if he had bought a price-comparable turntable (£898) instead of my Rega P2 !
Vinyl or CD superiority IS a matter of dispute/opinion/taste and - definitely - not something anyone can be categoric about.
That was my point Chebby. To compare to a microwave meal to a home cooked meal is not right. More like a grilled piece of fish to a steamed piece?
Gerrardasnails:
I'm sorry but I disagree with this completely. Are you categorically stating that vinyl sounds better than CD? I beg to differ.
Well, WHF member 'True Blue' is a recent convert to vinyl and is - in no uncertain terms - prefering it to his Rega Saturn CD player.
I can only imagine what he would think if he had bought a price-comparable turntable (£898) instead of my Rega P2 !
Vinyl or CD superiority IS a matter of dispute/opinion/taste and - definitely - not something anyone can be categoric about.
That was my point Chebby. To compare to a microwave meal to a home cooked meal is not right. More like a grilled piece of fish to a steamed piece?
More like a grilled piece of fish to a steamed piece?
oh no. i wont have that. many fish are so delicate steaming is the superior way
to cook. grilling can dry it out.
oh no. i wont have that. many fish are so delicate steaming is the superior way
to cook. grilling can dry it out.
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,169
- 142
- 19,370
Sabby:......when they want to describe a piece of equipment that sounds good, almost always say "analogue like" as a reference point........
I think that that descriptive is less common now. It was very common at the start of digital music as in CDs in comparison to vinyl. But now it is more likely to be PC based music in comparison to CDPs.
I take analogue like to mean close to the original recording (neutral) with loads of detail (different instruments are easy to hear) and clarity (everything sounds clear and realistic). That is to my mind what high fidelity means and analogue has taken over from that term as an overall descriptive of the aim of hifi.
I think that that descriptive is less common now. It was very common at the start of digital music as in CDs in comparison to vinyl. But now it is more likely to be PC based music in comparison to CDPs.
I take analogue like to mean close to the original recording (neutral) with loads of detail (different instruments are easy to hear) and clarity (everything sounds clear and realistic). That is to my mind what high fidelity means and analogue has taken over from that term as an overall descriptive of the aim of hifi.
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
method man:
More like a grilled piece of fish to a steamed piece?
oh no. i wont have that. many fish are so delicate steaming is the superior way
to cook. grilling can dry it out.
You can grill certain fish like cod and sea bass and have the meat lovely and moist, obviously as long as you don't over cook it.
My point though MM, is that some people like their fish quite plain, and steamed, to taste the freshness of the fish, others might like a crispy skin with a bit of spice or seasoning on it. Equally delicious - we are not talking fish fingers to dover sole dusted in seasoned flour and pan fried like an earlier poster implied!
More like a grilled piece of fish to a steamed piece?
oh no. i wont have that. many fish are so delicate steaming is the superior way
to cook. grilling can dry it out.
You can grill certain fish like cod and sea bass and have the meat lovely and moist, obviously as long as you don't over cook it.
My point though MM, is that some people like their fish quite plain, and steamed, to taste the freshness of the fish, others might like a crispy skin with a bit of spice or seasoning on it. Equally delicious - we are not talking fish fingers to dover sole dusted in seasoned flour and pan fried like an earlier poster implied!
The problem with digital is that it involves taking rapid "snap shots" (samples) of the audio and effectively throwing everything else away. When the sound is reconstructed it is then an approximation of the original sound (think of it as going from something smooth, to something jagged). However if you could take more and more of those snap shots and have each one recorded with greater precision (high resolution audio) eventual it will become as smooth (perceptually) as the original sound therefore having all the benefits of "analogue" and digital.
At some point our perception must be quantized anyway as we can only perceive certain differences in sound wave pressure and frequency but the point at which this occurs would probably be a matter for some debate.
And at some point the whole universe must be quantized to the smallest unit of energy (and no I've not been smoking anything today).
Anyway, what was the question again?!
At some point our perception must be quantized anyway as we can only perceive certain differences in sound wave pressure and frequency but the point at which this occurs would probably be a matter for some debate.
And at some point the whole universe must be quantized to the smallest unit of energy (and no I've not been smoking anything today).
Anyway, what was the question again?!
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,169
- 142
- 19,370
I understand what you are saying Stereolad. Is it not the case that the sampling from a CD is 44.1khz, so that means it is sampled 44,100 times each second. So, to use an analogy, you would only notice the difference under a microscope and to the eye both samples from vinyl and CD would look like smooth graphs.
I may have got that wrong.
I may have got that wrong.
I can't beleive this discussion is happening 10 years after SACD was released. Which promised and delivers analogue sounds in a digital format.
It's not like if performed music is 'converted to digital' when recorded. It's simply a matter of different types of recording technology.
It's not like if sound that's recorded, stored and played back with analog technology is better than sound that's handled digitally either. All recordings mean a detoriation of the live sound. At least in some aspects, like dynamics, analog recordings are more detoriated than digital (the fact that many CD's today has a limited dynamic range is due to radio friendly mixing; not to limitations in the CD format). Also, the frequency range covered by the CD format goes well above what normal people are able to hear -- so even if analog sound, in theory, can superceed this, it sould not have an impact on what comes out of your speakers (even if the recording actually contain them, which is doubtful, and your speakers are able to reproduce them, which most speakers won't).
What's more, the massive dependency on mechanics in reproduction adds a load of interference and distortion to analog players. There's hisses, cracks and pops from the interaction between the needle and the record grooves, and varying distortion caused by dust in the grooves; there's hum from the turntable motor and vibrations from passing trucks or your neighbors walking on the floor, all picked up and amplified by your hi-fi system; there's distortion from the needle being exposed to varying pressure and angles during it's travel from the wide outer to the narrow inner grooves; there's variations in speed, from the motor, or because the record is never completely flat (and according to traditional wisdom, anything that force the record against the platter will only make it worse, because it creates tensions in the record material). You might reduce these problems by buying a very expensive turntable and high quality records, store your records in a controlled environment, and play them in an industry standard clean room -- but you'll never get rid of it all.
I bought my first CD player 20 years ago. After comparing some of my favourite music on LP (played on a mid priced Rega) and CD (played on the cheapest NAD player available back then), I've never turned back. It was muddled and noisy vs clean and detailed. Perhaps I lack the analog fan's ability to filter out mechanical noise from the music. I certainly lack his fondness of muddled (or 'warm') sound.
Of course digital playback is more convenient -- but it's also about getting a real opportunity to get rid of all the problems related to mechanical sound reproduction.
It's not like if sound that's recorded, stored and played back with analog technology is better than sound that's handled digitally either. All recordings mean a detoriation of the live sound. At least in some aspects, like dynamics, analog recordings are more detoriated than digital (the fact that many CD's today has a limited dynamic range is due to radio friendly mixing; not to limitations in the CD format). Also, the frequency range covered by the CD format goes well above what normal people are able to hear -- so even if analog sound, in theory, can superceed this, it sould not have an impact on what comes out of your speakers (even if the recording actually contain them, which is doubtful, and your speakers are able to reproduce them, which most speakers won't).
What's more, the massive dependency on mechanics in reproduction adds a load of interference and distortion to analog players. There's hisses, cracks and pops from the interaction between the needle and the record grooves, and varying distortion caused by dust in the grooves; there's hum from the turntable motor and vibrations from passing trucks or your neighbors walking on the floor, all picked up and amplified by your hi-fi system; there's distortion from the needle being exposed to varying pressure and angles during it's travel from the wide outer to the narrow inner grooves; there's variations in speed, from the motor, or because the record is never completely flat (and according to traditional wisdom, anything that force the record against the platter will only make it worse, because it creates tensions in the record material). You might reduce these problems by buying a very expensive turntable and high quality records, store your records in a controlled environment, and play them in an industry standard clean room -- but you'll never get rid of it all.
I bought my first CD player 20 years ago. After comparing some of my favourite music on LP (played on a mid priced Rega) and CD (played on the cheapest NAD player available back then), I've never turned back. It was muddled and noisy vs clean and detailed. Perhaps I lack the analog fan's ability to filter out mechanical noise from the music. I certainly lack his fondness of muddled (or 'warm') sound.
Of course digital playback is more convenient -- but it's also about getting a real opportunity to get rid of all the problems related to mechanical sound reproduction.
idc:
I understand what you are saying Stereolad. Is it not the case that the sampling from a CD is 44.1khz, so that means it is sampled 44,100 times each second. So, to use an analogy, you would only notice the difference under a microscope and to the eye both samples from vinyl and CD would look like smooth graphs.
I may have got that wrong.
Sort of yes, and not just under a microscope, but limitations of the ears and brain etc. The 16 bit in the cd format refers to the size of the number that can be used to record the amplitude of a sound and the 44.1khz refers to the number of times a second one of these samples is taken. 44.1khz gives a limitation of 22,500khz as the maximum upper frequency of sounds to can be played back.
I wonder if analogue means warm sounding (as in some kind of harmonic distortion added to the sound) or if a properly hi-res digital audio format would exhibit the same kind of so-called "natural" sound. It's a tragic shame that we're still mainly using the 16/44 format so long after it first appeared!
I understand what you are saying Stereolad. Is it not the case that the sampling from a CD is 44.1khz, so that means it is sampled 44,100 times each second. So, to use an analogy, you would only notice the difference under a microscope and to the eye both samples from vinyl and CD would look like smooth graphs.
I may have got that wrong.
Sort of yes, and not just under a microscope, but limitations of the ears and brain etc. The 16 bit in the cd format refers to the size of the number that can be used to record the amplitude of a sound and the 44.1khz refers to the number of times a second one of these samples is taken. 44.1khz gives a limitation of 22,500khz as the maximum upper frequency of sounds to can be played back.
I wonder if analogue means warm sounding (as in some kind of harmonic distortion added to the sound) or if a properly hi-res digital audio format would exhibit the same kind of so-called "natural" sound. It's a tragic shame that we're still mainly using the 16/44 format so long after it first appeared!
fatboyslimfast
Well-known member
- Jan 10, 2008
- 158
- 0
- 18,590
Fahnsen:a real opportunity to get rid of all the problems related to mechanical sound reproduction.
All? How are you going to deal with those pesky mechanical cones in the speakers then?
All? How are you going to deal with those pesky mechanical cones in the speakers then?
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,169
- 142
- 19,370
Stereolad:......I wonder if analogue means warm sounding ...... "natural" sound......
Thanks for the detail about CD sampling. I am sure analogue now means just what I have quoted above. Vinyl tends to be associated with a warmer, realistic sound, whereas digital is brighter and more coloured with an emphasis on bass performance. The reason why I say that is mp3 players and compressed music files, as US research has shown, is preferred by the majority of students, who listen to processed pop/rap/grunge etc where such a sound suits the music more.
Thanks for the detail about CD sampling. I am sure analogue now means just what I have quoted above. Vinyl tends to be associated with a warmer, realistic sound, whereas digital is brighter and more coloured with an emphasis on bass performance. The reason why I say that is mp3 players and compressed music files, as US research has shown, is preferred by the majority of students, who listen to processed pop/rap/grunge etc where such a sound suits the music more.
Yes I have a Cyrus 8se now but compared to my Technics 1200 MKII I still prefer the sound of analogue. Grooves way more imo. And the Technics is way cheaper. It's all preference though. Maybe a AMR-77 will satisfy my hunger for the analogue sound I'm looking for.
I like the ease of CD's though. The Cyrus is a very nice CD player, it's just not "it" yet for me.
I like the ease of CD's though. The Cyrus is a very nice CD player, it's just not "it" yet for me.
SlickenSmooth:
Maybe a AMR-77 will satisfy my hunger for the analogue sound I'm looking for.
They have done well but they tubey sound AMR-77 produced doesn't mean it sound like an analog source. I think the answer is in the Digital - Analog converter, some upsample new ones sound soft and un-involving but the old TDA1541 dc sound pretty much spot on
Maybe a AMR-77 will satisfy my hunger for the analogue sound I'm looking for.
They have done well but they tubey sound AMR-77 produced doesn't mean it sound like an analog source. I think the answer is in the Digital - Analog converter, some upsample new ones sound soft and un-involving but the old TDA1541 dc sound pretty much spot on
There are 2 different angles to this whole discussion.
The first is the subjective listening experience and your enjoyment of the sound produced.
The second is the accuracy of the reproduction, as in, how closely the signal coming out of your source (vinyl, CDP, computer/DAC, or whatever else it may be) matches the studio original.
For the former, everyone can argue to their heart's content and clearly there are no right or wrong answers.
For the latter, digital has a distinct advantage over legacy analogue solutions like vinyl, casette and such like. And by "digital" I'm not talking about specific implementation but in more general terms - it's a fact, that using digital methods you can deliver an EXACT COPY of the studio original into your DAC, and coupled with a good DAC, you can get an extremely faithful reproduction of the original, much more so than through vinyl for example. I once tried to explain in this thread: http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/311161.aspx
The first is the subjective listening experience and your enjoyment of the sound produced.
The second is the accuracy of the reproduction, as in, how closely the signal coming out of your source (vinyl, CDP, computer/DAC, or whatever else it may be) matches the studio original.
For the former, everyone can argue to their heart's content and clearly there are no right or wrong answers.
For the latter, digital has a distinct advantage over legacy analogue solutions like vinyl, casette and such like. And by "digital" I'm not talking about specific implementation but in more general terms - it's a fact, that using digital methods you can deliver an EXACT COPY of the studio original into your DAC, and coupled with a good DAC, you can get an extremely faithful reproduction of the original, much more so than through vinyl for example. I once tried to explain in this thread: http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/311161.aspx
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
Does What Hi-FI Ever Post a Bad Review?!?- Started by keithiepoo
- Replies: 29
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram