I'm up for a Laugh...Music...Digital vs. Analog?????

You do know that the audio at live shows are mixed on gasp! digital consoles... and artists are recreating their studio albums live on stage with... digital processing...

Unless you just love jazz and classical (and still present there) I promise you digital audio and processing is all over that signal chain for live venues as well.

a reply to: HalWesten

originally posted by: Rob808
The each have their place, as to which is best? Totally a matter of opinion. I enjoy the vibe of analog, but it IS a filter on the captured audio, and in my opinion affects the playback more than modern 32 bit depth, 192k sample rate audio, and isn’t subject to micro variations from the playback device.

My ears tell me this isn't true but I lack the technical vocabulary to fully explain it. While listening to an ipod over bluetooth in my car, I have noticed that certain things (accelerating the car, for instance) cause brief pitch fluctuations that sound similar to tape speed variation.

Nobody had mentioned editing, which seems like such a no-brainer. Digital editing functions are on of the areas where digital can shine. Strangely, I typically treat my digital multitracker like it's an old cassette four-track, and really try not to do much editing. Clipping tops and tails and things like that is about the extent of it.

a reply to: kloejen
A really good post, and I enjoyed the video. I had not seen that one.

Regarding FLAC, even though FLAC files are considered lossless, I question their accuracy. When I (subjectively) listen to a WAV, FLAC, WMA, and MP3 of the same song, the uncompressed wav seems to sound the best of the four. I have tried having someone else randomly choose them at random, but I can still pick out the WAV file in most cases. Most meaning that FLAC, if encoded properly, is close enough that sometimes I can't tell the difference.

Between MP3 and WMA, I often feel WMA has the edge given the same bitrate. My hearing isn't what it used to be though. Someone younger than I might have a more discerning ear.

Have you worked with 32 bit 192 k audio side by side with a studer 837 2 inch tape machine? I have...

Best is a matter of opinion in the art of music production. Editing audio in the analog world is pretty tough, you physically cut the tape and splice the edit. Digital audio allows for far more complex edits with ease.

Purists will tell you analog is better, however the medium degrades with each playback, and it does filter the signal noticeably. Old analog consoles will add harmonic distortion to the signal in a pleasing way. Again, is that better? A matter of opinion in ART, there is no right answer.

Audio played via Bluetooth adds yet another dimension encoding and decoding the signal.

Playback device plays a large factor in the conversation yes.

The proper question would be what medium is best for what application.
reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Today's music ain't got the same soul, I like my old time rock and roll.

a reply to: Klassified

FLAC=WAV

FLAC is the same bit-by-bit copy of the WAV file, just using an algorithm optimized for audio data.

Test it. Take any .WAV file you have. Convert it to .FLAC. Then convert it back to .WAV again in another filename. Now compare the files. They are 100% identical.

WMA and MP3 use different encoders and parameters. I dont use the WMA format, but if you use mp3, you might not have set your mp3 encoder to spend a little more cpu-time when encoding your .wav files to improve on playback quality.
For the LAME mp3 encoder, use the -q option on commandline.

=======================================================================
Algorithm quality selection
=======================================================================
-q n

Bitrate is of course the main influence on quality. The higher the bitrate,
the higher the quality. But for a given bitrate, we have a choice of algorithms
to determine the best scalefactors and Huffman coding (noise shaping).

For CBR, ABR and --vbr-old modes, the following table applies

-q 0 Use the best algorithms (Best Huffman coding search, full outer
loop, and the highest precision of several parameters).
-q 1 to -q 4 Similar to -q 0 without the full outer loop and decreasing
precision of parameters the further from q0. -q 3 is the default
-q 5 and -q 6 Same as -q 7, but enables noise shaping and increases subblock
gain
-q 7 to -q 9 Same as -f. Very fast, OK quality. Psychoacoustics are used for
pre-echo and mid/side stereo, but no noise-shaping is done.

For the default VBR mode since LAME 3.98, the following table applies

-q 0 to -q 4 include all features of the other modes and additionally use
the best search when applying Huffman coding.
-q 5 and -q 6 include all features of -q7, calculate and consider actual
quantisation noise, and additionally enable subblock gain.
-q 7 to -q 9 This level uses a psymodel but does not calculate quantisation
noise when encoding: it takes a quick guess.

LAME mp3 usage

Just make sure the "-q 0" option is set in your encoder options, if possible.

originally posted by: Rob808

Purists will tell you analog is better, however the medium degrades with each playback, and it does filter the signal noticeably. Old analog consoles will add harmonic distortion to the signal in a pleasing way. Again, is that better? A matter of opinion in ART, there is no right answer.

Yep, good post! but some people won't ever accept it. they know better ... Opinions and different sets of ears is all it comes down to in the end.

808

It's ridiculous for anyone to claim that either digital or analog is better outside of true controlled listening scenarios because so much of music is subjective.

If I run my vinyl setup through a vintage McIntosh Tube Amp+preamp or stream HD or DSD through a Schiit Eitr (technically the Schiit Eitr doesn't support DSD) + Marantz HD-DAC1 or some other more exotic DAC to a group of five people they are all going to hear, like or prefer different things.

That doesn't get into speakers or headphones, speaker placement, room variables and so on. Sorry been doing audiophile as a hobby for over two decades and you won't ever see me list interconnects in there. 😎

One doesn't have to be better than the other as long as someone finds something pleasurable in listening to an album, regardless of medium, that is really all that matters. Hell I'll argue that listening to the opening of Time by Pink Floyd via the multichannel SACD mix is mind blowing enough that everyone needs to hear it once.

When I consult for people on their audio setup this is the message I always try and get across. Don't get caught up in scam products and gimmicks, don't get caught up in names or the normal overly written audiophile product reviews which talk about "warm cherry flavored tones with massive presence". Figure out the source material that works for you, figure out your budget, any reputable Av place should allow for home testing, get it home and play your songs. Does it sound good to you or does it evoke emotions, if the answer is yes then make your purchase.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I remember years ago I had a really nice Pioneer direct drive Turntable. I had a few Led Zep albums on both CD and vinyl. I can definitely say that the vinyl versions blew the socks off the CDs as far as reproducing the bass and ambience of the music. digital is sterile by comparison to analog IMHO. Yes you may hear a little hiss, and also a dozen other subtle things you will NEVER hear on a CD.

If you ever want to test this, find yourself a copy of Pink Floyd Dark side of the moon on Vinyl and compare it with the CD version. I used to have the original 1973 Harvest Records pressing of Dark side, OMG that's probably one of the finest recordings on vinyl ever made. It will BLOW YOUR SOCKS OFF!

The CD version pales by comparison. Some albums do sound pretty good in digital format, but something is definitely lost in the conversion. Electric Light orchestra is another good example. The vinyl versions are PHENOMENAL.

a reply to: openminded2011

If you ever want to test this, find yourself a copy of Pink Floyd Dark side of the moon on Vinyl and compare it with the CD version.

Both of my DSOTM cd's (one is MFSL) are cleaner and more accurate than the vinyl, but sometimes it's just more fun to listen to the album. It pops and crackles, but that's part of the nostalgia.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If you ever want to test this, find yourself a copy of Pink Floyd Dark side of the moon on Vinyl and compare it with the CD version. I used to have the original 1973 Harvest Records pressing of Dark side, OMG that's probably one of the finest recordings on vinyl ever made. It will BLOW YOUR SOCKS OFF!

The CD version pales by comparison. Some albums do sound pretty good in digital format, but something is definitely lost in the conversion. Electric Light orchestra is another good example. The vinyl versions are PHENOMENAL.

That is the the thing..Music is subjective.

I have the multichannel SACD, SACD stereo, full immersion box set, multiple vinylquad vinly , digital releases of DSotM and of all of them the multichannel SACD is my favorite by far just because the experience of hearing everything in discreet channels.

That doesnt mean that digital is better than analog it just means that for me that is the version I prefer.

a reply to: kloejen

FLAC=WAV

FLAC is the same bit-by-bit copy of the WAV file, just using an algorithm optimized for audio data.
Test it. Take any .WAV file you have. Convert it to .FLAC. Then convert it back to .WAV again in another filename. Now compare the files. They are 100% identical.

Thanks for the reply. I understand what FLAC is and how it works, it was just a subjective observance. I have considered going back to strictly using EAC for encoding FLAC to see if I can hear any difference.

Im glad you caught the reference in my user handle!
a reply to: valiant

You know, I bet your parents said the same thing... a reply to: Bloodworth

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted

That is the the thing..Music is subjective.

I have the multichannel SACD, SACD stereo, full immersion box set, multiple vinylquad vinly , digital releases of DSotM and of all of them the multichannel SACD is my favorite by far just because the experience of hearing everything in discreet channels.

That doesnt mean that digital is better than analog it just means that for me that is the version I prefer.

You sir!

Anyone who suggest digital music is superior simply doesn't understand digital music. Digital formats, even at the highest resolutions obviously degrade the music. The sampling process makes a smooth sound wave jagged - the highest resolutions can get close to a smooth curve but can never quite get there.

A simplification...


The higher the bit rate and frequency the less jagged the digital sound wave is, but it's always jagged.

1970s PCM to Analog Cassette & Vinyl 1987 D.A.T. to Analog Cassette Vinyl too DD. Compact Disk ( Digital ) 1990s D.A.T. to Cassette Compact Disk .. Digital

as most Professional recording Studios back then days USE D.A.T or WAV.....

here some history
This History Of The Digital Audio Tape (DAT) - Music School
www.youtube.com...


A (Brief) History of Digital Audio Recording: 50 years in 5 minutes!
www.youtube.com...


but for True Analog Vs Digital

Well...


Nothing Beats a Clean Vinyl on a VACUUM Tube Stereo System !

So Crisp So Crystal Clear! So define..

Some Companies are trying too bring the Vacuum tube OLD Tech Back

a reply to: UKTruth

Exactly!!! Thank you!

This was precisely my point earlier.

Your graphic says it perfectly.

What does analog do to audio? 1, degrade and distort after each playback as the medium is damaged. 2 inch tape at 30ips (the highest quality analog) still will experience a high end roll off at 16k and a bump in the low end (depending on how the tape machine is biased) and will be subject to wah effect as the tape reels physically spin over the tape heads. External factors such as dust, dirty tape heads, other magnets in the room etc can all impact the audio. Side by side, analog signal is greatly affected and is also not a true replication of the original source audio.

Is the analog sound pleasing? Yes. Is it cleaner? No.

a reply to: UKTruth

originally posted by: Rob808
What does analog do to audio? 1, degrade and distort after each playback as the medium is damaged. 2 inch tape at 30ips (the highest quality analog) still will experience a high end roll off at 16k and a bump in the low end (depending on how the tape machine is biased) and will be subject to wah effect as the tape reels physically spin over the tape heads. External factors such as dust, dirty tape heads, other magnets in the room etc can all impact the audio. Side by side, analog signal is greatly affected and is also not a true replication of the original source audio.

Is the analog sound pleasing? Yes. Is it cleaner? No.

a reply to: UKTruth

Media degradation is a fair point - but analog music also includes live performance.