fatko
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2004
- Posts
- 518
- Likes
- 10
what are the main differences?
only in the sense of musicality or ...smoothness??
or what else?
only in the sense of musicality or ...smoothness??
or what else?
how does Analog music sound differently from Digital music?
- Thread starter fatko
- Start date
rincewind
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Posts
- 1,097
- Likes
- 44
In contrast, digital music will only be really REALLY loud to the point where it will break your speakers and/or headphones, and then other parts where you cannot hear anything at all - that is the nature of digital music: totally on or totally off. It is also typical to have such sound effects as "bleep" and "bloop"
***...
glenmorangie
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Posts
- 161
- Likes
- 1
analog music contains lots of warm pops, hisses and crackles..especially if you like to snack while enjoying your record collection.
Aman
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Posts
- 4,475
- Likes
- 21
Analog can sound a lot worse than digital... but also a lot better.
Analog has an advantage due to the type of materials you are working with. Records' only sound limits (audible to the ear) are those that you put on them. In other words, a fresh, clean, hardly-played vinyl on very good equipment will sound fantastic -- better beyond your wildest dreams ... certainly not something your CD player could do. However, take that same vinyl, play it a lot on an old stylus and without ever cleaning it -- and you'll get sound much worse than digital. The only real limit the listener has is that of the limits of the physical media. And, of course, vinyl junkies who are dedicated enough (and there are plenty, including I, here, if you have more questions) will be able to experience some of the most rewarding and pleasant sound to ever come from recorded music.
But this is also assuming that the actual recording is good too.
Remember that if the LP of 'Kind of Blue' has bad EQ bends and a bright sound to it, and the CD doesn't, that the CD will probably sound better most of the time. However, because this is not the case, the LP version has the ability to sound a LOT better.
Basically, vinyl is a whole other hobby in itself. It takes cleaning, care, and collecting. It also takes money. You will need to spend quite a bit of money on accessories including a record cleaning machine, brushes, fluid, and other things to get the most out of both your vinyl and your turntable. But in the end, it's very rewarding.
Analog has an advantage due to the type of materials you are working with. Records' only sound limits (audible to the ear) are those that you put on them. In other words, a fresh, clean, hardly-played vinyl on very good equipment will sound fantastic -- better beyond your wildest dreams ... certainly not something your CD player could do. However, take that same vinyl, play it a lot on an old stylus and without ever cleaning it -- and you'll get sound much worse than digital. The only real limit the listener has is that of the limits of the physical media. And, of course, vinyl junkies who are dedicated enough (and there are plenty, including I, here, if you have more questions) will be able to experience some of the most rewarding and pleasant sound to ever come from recorded music.
But this is also assuming that the actual recording is good too.
Remember that if the LP of 'Kind of Blue' has bad EQ bends and a bright sound to it, and the CD doesn't, that the CD will probably sound better most of the time. However, because this is not the case, the LP version has the ability to sound a LOT better.
Basically, vinyl is a whole other hobby in itself. It takes cleaning, care, and collecting. It also takes money. You will need to spend quite a bit of money on accessories including a record cleaning machine, brushes, fluid, and other things to get the most out of both your vinyl and your turntable. But in the end, it's very rewarding.
chillysalsa
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2002
- Posts
- 1,989
- Likes
- 187
The combination of cartridges, turntables, phono preamps means that you will spend a lot more time trying to find the sound you want, but at the same time you might be more likely to end up finding that sound.
I would say that analog is less neutral, but usually more musical when done right.
If the rig is not set up right, smoothness is the last possible thing I would describe it as. Some very harsh sounds can come from a cartridge that is not set up right!
I would say that analog is less neutral, but usually more musical when done right.
If the rig is not set up right, smoothness is the last possible thing I would describe it as. Some very harsh sounds can come from a cartridge that is not set up right!
Kram Sacul
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Posts
- 286
- Likes
- 11
Here it is in a few words:
analog = warm sounding, like wax, smooth, etc
digital = cold, shrill, fatiguing, etc
The winner is of course digital because it has the potentional to be warm and smooth like wax but analog is stuck where it is.
analog = warm sounding, like wax, smooth, etc
digital = cold, shrill, fatiguing, etc
The winner is of course digital because it has the potentional to be warm and smooth like wax but analog is stuck where it is.
sanne
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Posts
- 161
- Likes
- 10
i don't think it's fair for anyone to comment here UNLESS they have heard a decent vinyl setup. it's really something you just have to hear for yourself I'm sorry to say. i'd take a decent vinyl setup over CD anyday, it's worth the extra money/time/patience/cleaning.
that's why I'm really hoping that redbook is replaced by a much higher def. format like SACD for example or some blueray spinoff. i think that once redbook is replaced with the next digital format, it will be hard to tell the difference between digital/analog. but in the meanwhile, digital does not sound to my ears even close to that of a great vinyl setup.
that's why I'm really hoping that redbook is replaced by a much higher def. format like SACD for example or some blueray spinoff. i think that once redbook is replaced with the next digital format, it will be hard to tell the difference between digital/analog. but in the meanwhile, digital does not sound to my ears even close to that of a great vinyl setup.
jiiteepee
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Posts
- 1,606
- Likes
- 62
Analog music: I can tell instruments, words, colour, dynamic changes, etc. I can listen this music without being exhaust for hours and hours ...
Digital music: buzzing (fastly variating (monotone buzzing sound)). I like to take my headphones from my ears in under 1 second.
jiitee
Digital music: buzzing (fastly variating (monotone buzzing sound)). I like to take my headphones from my ears in under 1 second.
jiitee
Trogdor
Reviewer: Metal-Fi
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,141
- Likes
- 421
Analog in terms of recording, playback, medium? What are we talking about here?!
Trogdor
Trogdor
Illah
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Posts
- 1,332
- Likes
- 12
My impressions:
Analog (specifically records) = Lots of work for an inherently imprefect sound. Like was mentioned earlier, only a brand new perfect record will give you that super-duper sound. Any variations in manufacturing or care of the record results in inconsistencies, and the act of playing the record, i.e. running a needle across it, causes the record to degrade over time. In other words, snap, cracle, pop.
Digital = Very stable and perfectly reporducable every time. Sure, it's not a pure analog signal in the sense that the samples are interpolated to produce the waveform, but a well mastered digital recording can have plenty of warmth and musicality. If higher sample/bit recording ever become mainstream it will get even better (i.e. 192/24 vs 44.1/16).
And ricewind, where do you get that digital is either on or off? I hope you're not referencing that from the differences in a sine vs. square waveform. Digital playback isn't done with a stepped waveform, but an interpolated sine from the samples. Also there is a great dynamic range in digital sound. Ever watch a DVD? Big booms and tiny whispers all in the same film, no need to adjust volume. I don't know the specs exactly but I'd be very surprised if the dynamic range of a record was greater than digital - you're limited by the physical size of the peaks and valleys.
--Illah
Analog (specifically records) = Lots of work for an inherently imprefect sound. Like was mentioned earlier, only a brand new perfect record will give you that super-duper sound. Any variations in manufacturing or care of the record results in inconsistencies, and the act of playing the record, i.e. running a needle across it, causes the record to degrade over time. In other words, snap, cracle, pop.
Digital = Very stable and perfectly reporducable every time. Sure, it's not a pure analog signal in the sense that the samples are interpolated to produce the waveform, but a well mastered digital recording can have plenty of warmth and musicality. If higher sample/bit recording ever become mainstream it will get even better (i.e. 192/24 vs 44.1/16).
And ricewind, where do you get that digital is either on or off? I hope you're not referencing that from the differences in a sine vs. square waveform. Digital playback isn't done with a stepped waveform, but an interpolated sine from the samples. Also there is a great dynamic range in digital sound. Ever watch a DVD? Big booms and tiny whispers all in the same film, no need to adjust volume. I don't know the specs exactly but I'd be very surprised if the dynamic range of a record was greater than digital - you're limited by the physical size of the peaks and valleys.
--Illah
Illah
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Posts
- 1,332
- Likes
- 12
Haha, this thread just got me thinking about HD-Audio. With Blu-Ray and HD-DVD we'll have 35GB more or less on a disc. Theoretically we could master insane bit/sample recordings like 768/32 on there. That would have sample separations approaching a micro-second (1/1,000,000 of a second) so there would be practically no interpolation going on, and the 32 bit depth would open up the potential range quite a bit.
--Illah
--Illah
Aman
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Posts
- 4,475
- Likes
- 21
Quote:
This hardly ever happens. You're largely exagerating.
I don't know about you, but I don't even remember the last time that I put my needle ACROSS the record.
Again, it takes CARE. It takes only a basic level of caring for your belongings.
Hell, vinyl also outlasts CDs. I have CDs from ten years ago that are too scratched to play anymore. But my a lot of my vinyl collection came from my own attic, in which it was in very hot conditions, and covered in mold. A little cleaning with the machine and they sounded like new again!
I was not saying that you could only achieve the sound from a brand new LP. I was saying that if you kept it in the condition you received it in, you'd never have problems. Vinyl is pressed with something like a .0001% inaccuracy rating, so, again, the vinyl comes to you in its best ability to perform. It is the user who screws it up.
You really can't justify these words. Vinyl is a pristine, fragile, and enjoyable product. It is the exact same reason why you can't expect to crash your Ferrari and have it drive the same, or play "catch" with expensive glass art and not have it break on you.
| Analog (specifically records) = Lots of work for an inherently imprefect sound. Like was mentioned earlier, only a brand new perfect record will give you that super-duper sound. Any variations in manufacturing or care of the record results in inconsistencies, and the act of playing the record, i.e. running a needle across it, causes the record to degrade over time. In other words, snap, cracle, pop. |
This hardly ever happens. You're largely exagerating.
I don't know about you, but I don't even remember the last time that I put my needle ACROSS the record.
Again, it takes CARE. It takes only a basic level of caring for your belongings.
Hell, vinyl also outlasts CDs. I have CDs from ten years ago that are too scratched to play anymore. But my a lot of my vinyl collection came from my own attic, in which it was in very hot conditions, and covered in mold. A little cleaning with the machine and they sounded like new again!
I was not saying that you could only achieve the sound from a brand new LP. I was saying that if you kept it in the condition you received it in, you'd never have problems. Vinyl is pressed with something like a .0001% inaccuracy rating, so, again, the vinyl comes to you in its best ability to perform. It is the user who screws it up.
You really can't justify these words. Vinyl is a pristine, fragile, and enjoyable product. It is the exact same reason why you can't expect to crash your Ferrari and have it drive the same, or play "catch" with expensive glass art and not have it break on you.
lini
Thought the last line in Citizen Kane was nosebud.
Quote:
Hmmm - semms like you've missed the joke there...
Grinnings from Hannover!
Manfred / lini
| Originally Posted by Illah (...) And ricewind, where do you get that digital is either on or off? (...) |
Hmmm - semms like you've missed the joke there...
Grinnings from Hannover!
Manfred / lini
jaysker
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2014
- Posts
- 5
- Likes
- 0
This thread was very interesting! I too am on the path to find that sweet analog sound.
My friend and I recently observed that really great analog recordings from the 70's sounded better on CD (or even .mp3) than any of the newer all-digital recordings. So, we set started a research project to determine why. Our theory was that whatever is special about good analog recordings, to some extent, is preserved when it's converted to digital. The logical implication here is that maybe it's possible to alter digital recordings to sound "analog". After a series of tests, we found something...something that is outside of the normal "why analog sounds better than digital" arguments. (eq, gain, compression, saturation, etc)
To test the clue, we developed a software application to make alterations to the sound of some digital recordings. We ran some tests and....wow! In just a few shorts months we have developed a sophisticated set of algorithms that pull the mask off of all-digital recordings. To us, this is potentially a game changer....which brings me to the reason for this post!
We have something that sounds really good to our ears and the ears of our pro-audio and musician friends. But we are interested in your opinion. We are hoping to find some volunteers that are willing to send us files for processing and give us feedback on the results. This is purely research - and totally free.
If you are interested, please contact me at fideliquest@gmail.com. We would love to get your opinion and see what you think!
Cheers,
Jayson Tomlin
My friend and I recently observed that really great analog recordings from the 70's sounded better on CD (or even .mp3) than any of the newer all-digital recordings. So, we set started a research project to determine why. Our theory was that whatever is special about good analog recordings, to some extent, is preserved when it's converted to digital. The logical implication here is that maybe it's possible to alter digital recordings to sound "analog". After a series of tests, we found something...something that is outside of the normal "why analog sounds better than digital" arguments. (eq, gain, compression, saturation, etc)
To test the clue, we developed a software application to make alterations to the sound of some digital recordings. We ran some tests and....wow! In just a few shorts months we have developed a sophisticated set of algorithms that pull the mask off of all-digital recordings. To us, this is potentially a game changer....which brings me to the reason for this post!
We have something that sounds really good to our ears and the ears of our pro-audio and musician friends. But we are interested in your opinion. We are hoping to find some volunteers that are willing to send us files for processing and give us feedback on the results. This is purely research - and totally free.
If you are interested, please contact me at fideliquest@gmail.com. We would love to get your opinion and see what you think!
Cheers,
Jayson Tomlin
BackToAnalogue
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Posts
- 106
- Likes
- 30
Ok well firstly I would love know more about your thoughts on this, but as someone who trained as a Mathematician a long time ago, I always go back to the principle that once information has been lost it is impossible to get it back again by any Mathematical process. So I have always been sceptical about things like upsampling, DSD etc which claim to somehow improve the data before it goes to the DAC. That is Mathematically impossible.
I opened the door on this particular thought game about 6 months ago by posing myself exactly the same question. Why does vinyl sound so much better than CD? And why is it so obvious to anyone with the slightest appreciation of music if you sit them down in front of a decent Vinyl system (say $1500). And how can it be that all the recording people say it is an illusion, CD is almost perfect, it is just the warm sound of vinyl (the roar), the Science even proves it. Vinyl can't sound better. But I can hear the difference and so can lots of other people, so how has that contradiction existed for 30 years and is still not explained?
So I thought 'Well there must be an explanation which holds together that I can find online and then I will know the answer and find something else to think about". Wrong.
Almost everything I read about this subject online contains at best major flaws in the explanation, but mostly great big gaping holes in the logic.
6 months later I am still unpeeling the onion. I am trying to understand the Maths to the level that I used to 35 years ago. But I can tell you a couple of things. DNR of vinyl is a lot smaller that Digital. But what does DNR tell you? Does it tell you how accurate the analogue sound wave produced by your equipment is compared to the source? Well no, it doesn't tell you that at all. In the case of digital equipment all it tells you is how many bits the DAC is actually able to use. With analogue it is the difference between the loudest sound reproduce-able compared to the quietest. Now with Digital the quietest sound is 1 bit so DNR also measures how accurately change in amplitude is measured i.e. how many bits are used. With analogue that is not the case. The term analogue is a bit misleading, it should really be called something like 'continuous' . Because it is continuous an 'analogue' recording is theoretically capable of recording changes in amplitude to an infinite level of detail. Of course in practise it is limited by all kinds of physical constraints and so is by no means perfect. But DNR does not measure that. It is a comparative logarithmic scale not a true measure. And it is used for different things. Comparing the DNR of the human auditory system with the DNR of a DAC, is like measuring the length of someone's nose by measuring their image on a TV screen.
And the other reason is the fundamental premise which is used to justify and explain CD i.e. Nyquist-Shannon Theorem proves that if we sample a sound wave at 2 times the highest frequency that humans can hear then that is sufficient data to be able to reproduce it perfectly.
You can find this statement or similar all over the internet, and it is just plain wrong, Bad Maths, Neil Young was absolutely right. Well sort of. The equation is absolutely correct, of course it is. But this interpretation of what it tells us about sound waves is just plain wrong. If this gets any interest from a few people who aren't put off by the word Maths then I will have a go at explaining why.
Oh and before any onesays it I am not saying CDs don't work.
I opened the door on this particular thought game about 6 months ago by posing myself exactly the same question. Why does vinyl sound so much better than CD? And why is it so obvious to anyone with the slightest appreciation of music if you sit them down in front of a decent Vinyl system (say $1500). And how can it be that all the recording people say it is an illusion, CD is almost perfect, it is just the warm sound of vinyl (the roar), the Science even proves it. Vinyl can't sound better. But I can hear the difference and so can lots of other people, so how has that contradiction existed for 30 years and is still not explained?
So I thought 'Well there must be an explanation which holds together that I can find online and then I will know the answer and find something else to think about". Wrong.
Almost everything I read about this subject online contains at best major flaws in the explanation, but mostly great big gaping holes in the logic.
6 months later I am still unpeeling the onion. I am trying to understand the Maths to the level that I used to 35 years ago. But I can tell you a couple of things. DNR of vinyl is a lot smaller that Digital. But what does DNR tell you? Does it tell you how accurate the analogue sound wave produced by your equipment is compared to the source? Well no, it doesn't tell you that at all. In the case of digital equipment all it tells you is how many bits the DAC is actually able to use. With analogue it is the difference between the loudest sound reproduce-able compared to the quietest. Now with Digital the quietest sound is 1 bit so DNR also measures how accurately change in amplitude is measured i.e. how many bits are used. With analogue that is not the case. The term analogue is a bit misleading, it should really be called something like 'continuous' . Because it is continuous an 'analogue' recording is theoretically capable of recording changes in amplitude to an infinite level of detail. Of course in practise it is limited by all kinds of physical constraints and so is by no means perfect. But DNR does not measure that. It is a comparative logarithmic scale not a true measure. And it is used for different things. Comparing the DNR of the human auditory system with the DNR of a DAC, is like measuring the length of someone's nose by measuring their image on a TV screen.
And the other reason is the fundamental premise which is used to justify and explain CD i.e. Nyquist-Shannon Theorem proves that if we sample a sound wave at 2 times the highest frequency that humans can hear then that is sufficient data to be able to reproduce it perfectly.
You can find this statement or similar all over the internet, and it is just plain wrong, Bad Maths, Neil Young was absolutely right. Well sort of. The equation is absolutely correct, of course it is. But this interpretation of what it tells us about sound waves is just plain wrong. If this gets any interest from a few people who aren't put off by the word Maths then I will have a go at explaining why.
Oh and before any onesays it I am not saying CDs don't work.
Users who are viewing this thread
