Digital or Analog audio source?

[m-jeri]

Hi.

I hope this is a sane question to ask. I was having a discussion with a colleague of mine. He is around 55 years old. And he has a GIANT collection of LP's and spool tapes. And when I joked that most probably my iPod can carry all of that music in my denim pocket. He went on to saying the pro's of loudness, distortion, quality etc.

Of course, me being a normal human being. Everything went over my head.

Why people still invest in analog now? Even in Indian forums I have seen that. Its like with some sort of smugness people say. Why? Isn't everything digital now? So they really sound that bad? What about Pono then?

Or is it the low bit rate the excuse?

Thanks.

 

[cranky]

The short answer is that it depends on which is better. There's good digital and bad digital, and good analog and bad analog.

People invest in what suits their wallet and ears. Digital technology has come a long way but unfortunately most modern music is trash and has progressively deteriorated over time. As a result some really good music is available only as analog material. Most remasters suck, even the original CDs directly copied from master tapes is sometimes better than the tinkering done by studios to reissue old work.

Analog is more fiddly and requires more effort to set up and enjoy. A good turntable will cost upwards of 5L and take a month or so to set up, but so will a high end transport and converter combo.

I think the answer is the old, hackneyed one - it depends.

 

[m-jeri]

Again. I will tell you reply is nothing but smug.

Digital technology has come a long way but unfortunately most modern music is trash and has progressively deteriorated over time

I see not tangible proof other than your words. Just like what I hear from any analog enthusiasts.

I think the answer is the old, hackneyed one - it depends.

I think it depends upon whether one want to hear good music or if they want to show off.

 

[cranky]

You want the long answer, go study audio engineering or read a book. There's enough on the topic to fill a book or three. Once you've done that, come back here and we can have a more informed discussion. Asking forum-based questions will give you basic and short answer.

If you want more technical stuff, start with EE Times and the AES. We'll talk after. Or not.

 

[m-jeri]

Well, when someone doesn't know how to answer they rant. Understandable. You can stay out of the thread if you cannot participate. As a public thread in a public forum, thankfully I can ask questions. No matter how dumb it is, or no matter how low you think of me. It just doesn't matter.

 

[cranky]

Why people still invest in analog now?

People invest in what suits their wallet and ears.

Or is it the low bit rate the excuse?

most modern music is trash and has progressively deteriorated over time. As a result some really good music is available only as analog material.

Again. I will tell you reply is nothing but smug

Sorry, who's ranting? Try and read posts for answers to your questions before passing comments.

No question is stupid except that which has an answer you are not expecting. A pity, this could have been an interesting discussion.

 

[puns]

Whether digital or analog is better, is a question like chicken or egg came first. There are supporters & haters for both.
The thing with digital music is it is more convenient in terms of access, equipments & portability and with external factors like price, time saving & a generation gap issue, you see more of digital today than analog and maybe in the future, analog source will not be existent when it comes to music.

There are so many factors which go into a digital or analog sound recording that it is impossible to list them all.
Its simply an individual choice in the end based on access, experience & liking for the type of sound.

For me, I have always loved analog based recordings and if I have the money ( lots of it ) then I will invest in an analog system than digital.

 

[Chaos]

M-jeri you should Google about loudness wars. You'll get the tip of the iceberg of what cranky is talking about.

As being someone who has spent significant time and money on both analog and digital, let me tell you as one progresses up the ladder, there is more similarity than difference between a well setup analog and a digital rig.

With the right software, both can sound equally good and with the wrong software, both can also sound terrible. However one thing is for certain - a low to mid end analog player (1000-2000$) will absolutely shame a DAC or CD player in a similar price range. Good digital is not cheap. You need to spend the equivalent of at least 5000$ or similar to get a good sounding digital rig.

 

[m-jeri]

A pity, this could have been an interesting discussion.

I am out of this thread.

 

[booo]

Since DAC is responsible for getting the best signal out of the digital source I think it depends totally on it. The rest of the amplification should be same on both types of equipments.

 

[vivek.krishnan]

Most of the current music is trash. Thats a no brainer.

As for the remasters, yes, and they are not limited to English, even Hindi (Dont remember the album name, though). Dunno why they need to tinker with the music at all.

As for the OP, no one cares. This is a forum, each one is entitled to his or her opinion.

 

[puns]

Most of the current music is trash. Thats a no brainer.

As for the remasters, yes, and they are not limited to English, even Hindi (Dont remember the album name, though). Dunno why they need to tinker with the music at all.

As for the OP, no one cares. This is a forum, each one is entitled to his or her opinion.

I hope you mean mastering process and not music in general .
Yes its true most remasters are done atrociously with digital sources & equipments in mind but there are some gems now and then.

Steve Hoffman forums is a great place to read on recordings and the science. forums.stevehoffman.tv

 

[vivek.krishnan]

I hope you mean mastering process and not music in general .
Yes its true most remasters are done atrociously with digital sources & equipments in mind but there are some gems now and then.

Steve Hoffman forums is a great place to read on recordings and the science. forums.stevehoffman.tv

Not all, but much of the music is all electronic stuff and all, same lyrics repeating over and over. I dont need to talk about Bollywood, with the exception of Highway (bought the MP3 disc, totally worth it) almost all were

But then, it is a subjective matter.

As for decent to high end DACs and all, I believe that unless you have excellent ears, and good headphones, the DAC wont matter much. But, if the DAC is pathetic, it will spoil the entire experience, even with a decent set of cans.

 

[cranky]

Now that the vitriol has dissipated and calmer voices have emerged...

When it comes to a source, analog noise is predominantly mechanical whereas digital noise is predominantly errors. Typically analog will also be specified for lower dynamic range than digital, but there's a little more to the story than it seems.

Mechanical noise is the interface noise between the reading mechanism of stylus or tape head, and it is a constant. Error noise in analog sources is usually an artifact of that specific piece, such as dirt in a record groove which causes clicks or a worn section of tape. Since this is a variable component, it cannot be predicted and has to be dealt with on a case to case basis.

In digital, error is encountered at the stage of conversion to digital and conversion back. It is immune to surface noise, however a broken surface like that on a CD will give rise to errors. The higher the sampling frequency and bitrate the lower the error but it is still there. Since the digital 'image' of the waveform is an approximation of the input signal, it will never be exactly the same. The other big killer for digital music is the digital volume control, which reduces the effective bitrate severely. Playing at a -30dB level (just under half volume) results in an effective bitrate of ~11 bits if the source is 16 bits (you lose 1 bit for every 6dB volume reduction). This is somewhat avoided by cards that use 32-bit volume internally, which most pro cards do. This way you may be able to get effective 16 bits or close enough.

One more thing with digital is effective bitrate. As long as the signal is in digital domain, it is possible to maintain high accuracy. When converting to analog, the best converters in the world can do only about 21 bits effective resolution (regardless of what they are specified at). This is about -130dB noise, and is considered top-shelf performance like the DACs Chaos is talking about. 24 bit performance is not yet possible with digital technology, though many DACs are compatible with 32-bit material they will render only at a lower effective bitrate.

As to audibility of equipment and specifications, it depends. I've invested heavily in audio over the last two decades, similar to Chaos though probably not at his scale, and my final system uses a digital PC-based transport and DAC. I just find it easier to manage than having to rummage through 300+CDs, and the library based management is simpler for me. I doubt I will ever move to analog for the convenience, and because I have no source material left. Never had much to begin with, I moved very early to CDs and migrated to digital in the early 90s.

My point about music is that we are in the 'fast food' generation of music production. If you examine the operating style of labels, they look at fresh faces who will sell concert tickets and lots of albums, people who can be used for marketing and promotions and stuff like that. The music is an afterthought, and it sounds like it. The loudness war is a result of that way of operating and is a result of the music being so bad that the only way to make it tolerable is to make is louder than everything else. The really good music of today is by independents and small labels, who struggle to make any money at all. I'm not going to talk about Indian music, it is produced horribly. Bollywood etc are packed with 'producers' with very fancy equipment and tin ears. On examining a few samples with a waveform and spectrum analyser, it's like walking through the Rocky Horror Show - clipped peaks, boosted frequencies above 6KHz, not enough limiting and too much noise gating. Not that western music is much better but there are still enough artists who care for their craft.

 

[Mr.J]

Now that cranky has covered technical aspects, I will take this opportunity to rant about how digital has changed us.

Digital has made us irresponsible. The analog things such are record players, Walkmans, cameras required discipline to use them. Photography, for example, taught you to be patient and have confidence in yourself for the photo you are taking. 36 frames in one roll and you had to use it wisely. Now, we just keep clicking and clicking and editing it (no disrespect meant towards Photoshop professionals), we don't worry about getting the right click.

Walkmans allowed you to carry your music, couple of cassettes at a time. iPods and smartphones have oversaturated music and media in general. People listen to top 20 from latest movies and move on to new music every couple of weeks. Music is nowadays, in the background because very, very, very few people actually care about music. Same about movies. People watch movies on their phones and use their phones in movie theatres. What the actual f##k?

LPs required you to take care of them. You had to clean them after few weeks else they would accumulate dust and become useless. It sounds ridiculous to people who have grown up with 'use and throw' mentality (which also includes deleting past week's top 20 bollywood songs to make space for this week's top 20).

Whenever I look around, I realise that we have turned into lazy and apathetic society bordering on narcissism.

Take a look at following videos, It says kids, but teens and 20-something people are no different than these kids.

PS: I'd really, really, really like to have a record player and few LPs of classic rock music.

 

[6pack]

Heh heh. I still have loads of cassette tapes (around 200 + few blanks), an aiwa portable cassette player which still works, two cassette players and a bunch of 1.44 floppy blank disks. I used to pirate games on floppies when i was a kid. I know I'm old.
I still think that listening to audio cassette is better than CD. CDs are a bit harsh. Not as soft or warm as cassettes. Both have their drawbacks and cassettes has way more drawbacks. Tape would get stuck, fungus buildup etc etc.
Those days are long gone now.

 

[Oyster]

All depends on the quality of the recording. "Umrao Jaan" LP was as dynamic as i have heard anything while the "Rockstar" LP was as dud as the ACD version; same turntable and amp. A turntable or a DAC alone cannot convert your music into magical.

 

[asingh]

Anyways, clicked many years ago using a Nokia E50. I have boxes of old LPs, but need to invest in a TT unit...!

 

[Mr.J]

Are those in good condition?

Best way to obtain record player for low price is chor bazaar in Mumbai, or so I've heard. You may have to invest some time and money in spare parts too, if it isn't in best condition.

 

[asingh]

Are those in good condition?

Best way to obtain record player for low price is chor bazaar in Mumbai, or so I've heard. You may have to invest some time and money in spare parts too, if it isn't in best condition.

Yes, the platters are in good condition. No scratches, and have the fidelity of the technology they were constructed for. I live in New Delhi...!



I have around 3 trunks (those rectangular steel ones used long back) all full of LPs. From my dad's / uncle's era. A lot are from abroad, when India did not easily sell these "tapes"..! I for sure know, the Black Sabbath (Heaven and Hell) and Floyd's DSoTM are in there...!