Analog sound: Real or myth?

[no. 5]

The only thing that I don't understand is why they see that it is fit to compress the dynamics of an audio track.

perhaps, they are doing it to increase DVD-A and SACD sales.

 

[Seth=L]

Perhaps they do it because they are bastards?

 

[Pluck]

Has anybody ever done blind listening tests in which a CD player was compared to, for instance, a turntable? If so, what were the results?

About 10 years ago, I had a different system. Not as good as the one I've got now but still excellent. My 71-year-old mother, distinctly not an audiophile, was at my place and I said, "Ma, I'm going to show you the difference between hearing a record and hearing a CD."

I had (and still have) the analog and digital versions of Ella Fitzgerald's Cole Porter Songbook. Knowing that she loved that music, that's what I used. I made sure that she wouldn't know which was which, and I made no comments about either one. All I said was, "You tell me if you notice any difference." The test took about 10 minutes. She was floored by how much better the vinyl sounded. There was no getting around it.

A good deal of this was the room. I did the test in a pretty spartan, echoey space that wasn't too kind to the exaggerated treble of CDs. When I moved to a different place and did the test with other people in a more audiophile-friendly room, it was a lot harder to tell the difference. My experience is that a good room improves CDs a whole lot more than it improves vinyl.

What the heck is analog sound? I know it's the sound of vinyl records played on a turntable, but what is the supposed audible difference between analog sound and the sound from a CD player?

If it was recorded in analog, vinyl is going to sound warmer and fuller than a CD. Not very precise terms, warmer and fuller, but that's the best I can do. But if the record was recorded digitally or "digitally remastered," it's not going to matter. SACD and DVD audio are a huge improvements over regular CDs, but of course the room, the system and your own ears are going to play big roles.

And if it's an analog recording but a crappy analog recording, well, it's still going to be a crappy analog recording. One of the things about having a truly great system is that it will expose some terrible recordings. The Electric Light Orchestra is unlistenable on a good system. Listening to John Coltrane's My Favorite Things still makes me want to cry these days, but for a different reason.

Is it possible for a CD player to produce this so-called analog sound?

SACD and DVD audio will get very close. But the biggest thing you could do for your ears and your sanity, if you haven't already done so, is to never again play an MP3 recording. At this time, you have a whole generation growing up that doesn't have a clue about what music ought to sound like. It's not their fault. It's what they know. It's Apple's fault, and Apple doesn't care. But now that you know, go kill your MP3s if you have any.

Not only that, but a fair number of them are going deaf because of it. What happens is that they sense something missing in the music. They can't quite put their finger on what's missing, so they turn it up to try to capture the lost quality. You can get an illusion of better sound for a while, but it's not actually any better plus it just destroys your hearing.

Now that we've got much greater digital storage, there's just no excuse in the world for the MP3 format. A 4GB compact flash card costs less than 50 bucks, and it will hold at least five CDs worth of songs. You can already get a 16GB flash card for $235, and they'll be coming down. Soon we'll have 64GB sizes. Players are coming in 30GB and 60GB sizes, and those capacities will go up. It's time to bury MP3 for good. It really ought to be banned as a health risk. It's making people deaf. I'm not joking about that.

 

[MDS]

Pluck,
You and others you know may prefer the sound from vinyl but nearly everything else you stated is pure nonsense.

My experience is that a good room improves CDs a whole lot more than it improves vinyl.

A good room improves sound. Period.

If it was recorded in analog, vinyl is going to sound warmer and fuller than a CD. Not very precise terms, warmer and fuller, but that's the best I can do. But if the record was recorded digitally or "digitally remastered," it's not going to matter.

IF it was recorded in analog? Of course it was analog, vinyl is an analog medium. Analog vs digital doesn't have anything to do with 'fullness' or 'warmth' of sound. By the way there is no such thing as 'digital' recording. Sound is ANALOG - the analog signal has to be sampled to be converted to digital.

And if it's an analog recording but a crappy analog recording, well, it's still going to be a crappy analog recording. One of the things about having a truly great system is that it will expose some terrible recordings. The Electric Light Orchestra is unlistenable on a good system.

A crappy recording is a crappy recording, regardless of the format of the final medium. ELO sounds great on a low-end computer speaker system and even better on a high-end system. Maybe you just don't like the band?

the biggest thing you could do for your ears and your sanity, if you haven't already done so, is to never again play an MP3 recording. At this time, you have a whole generation growing up that doesn't have a clue about what music ought to sound like. It's not their fault. It's what they know. It's Apple's fault, and Apple doesn't care. But now that you know, go kill your MP3s if you have any.

What does Apple have to do with MP3? Apple didn't invent the MP3 format, Fraunhoffer is the originator and patent holder of the MP3 format. Not to mention the fact that using high bitrates, no 'audiophile' has ever shown that they could conclusively distinguish an MP3 from an uncompressed version.

Not only that, but a fair number of them are going deaf because of it. What happens is that they sense something missing in the music. They can't quite put their finger on what's missing, so they turn it up to try to capture the lost quality. You can get an illusion of better sound for a while, but it's not actually any better plus it just destroys your hearing. It's time to bury MP3 for good. It really ought to be banned as a health risk. It's making people deaf. I'm not joking about that.

If you are not joking, then you are extremely ignorant of the principles of sound and acoustics. MP3 destroys your hearing? LMAO!

Awesome first post, dude! 99% bullsh!t.

 

[Seth=L]

Wow, look at all the snake oil, what a mess. I can't even walk through this gunk.

 

[Pluck]

You and others you know may prefer the sound from vinyl but nearly everything else you stated is pure nonsense.

Ultimately it boils down to preference. If someone prefers digital sound then I can't argue with a preference.

IF it was recorded in analog? Of course it was analog

New recordings are almost always digital.

vinyl is an analog medium

Vinyl is an analog playback medium. There are plenty of vinyl records that were recorded digitally, or made from digital re-masters. If it comes from a digital master, no analog playback medium is going to restore it.

Analog vs digital doesn't have anything to do with 'fullness' or 'warmth' of sound. By the way there is no such thing as 'digital' recording. Sound is ANALOG - the analog signal has to be sampled to be converted to digital.

When I wrote "digital recording," I referred to the process of running the analog sound through an analog-to-digital converter. That is done for almost all recordings these days; the analog masters don't exist.

A crappy recording is a crappy recording, regardless of the format of the final medium. ELO sounds great on a low-end computer speaker system and even better on a high-end system. Maybe you just don't like the band?

I liked them until I heard them on a good system, at which point I found them difficult to listen to. It's the a bit like people from past generations who actually prefer the sound of 78 RPM records. To them, bad fidelity is part of the charm. I'm a bit that way myself when it comes to The Beatles. Part of me would rather hear It's A Hard Days Night on a transistor radio, in the car, with the windows open.

What does Apple have to do with MP3? Apple didn't invent the MP3 format, Fraunhoffer is the originator and patent holder of the MP3 format. Not to mention the fact that using high bitrates, no 'audiophile' has ever shown that they could conclusively distinguish an MP3 from an uncompressed version.

I should have been a lot more precise and referred to the highly compressed MP3s that are typical of the genre.

 

[MDS]

Stick around Pluck and you'll learn the difference between analog and digital and how they are still closely related. You may feel like part of some elite audiophile club bashing digital but trust me, on these forums you better have your technical info straight if you are going to do that and from what I've read so far you don't have any idea.

 

[Pluck]

Stick around Pluck and you'll learn the difference between analog and digital and how they are still closely related. You may feel like part of some elite audiophile club bashing digital but trust me, on these forums you better have your technical info straight if you are going to do that and from what I've read so far you don't have any idea.

Most of my listening is to digital formats. I'm not a purist, as you seem to believe. You've typecast me. On my current system, it's hard to tell the difference between analog and digital. I still have some room issues to deal with, so I've purposely put the question in abeyance for the current setup until I get those issues resolved.

I also think that digital technologies continue to get better. Many of the first CDs were horrendous, but that's a lot less true now. I am the last person on earth who'd tell someone that they ought to go out and buy a turntable, and until they've done so they haven't really heard music. That's not my gig at all. If and when digital = analog, I'll be happy to say so. Digital has a whole lot to recommend it, especially the convenience.

I wrote what I wrote in response to someone who asked if there's a difference, and what the nature of the difference is. I don't do specsmanship or knobs per dollar. I care about one thing, and one thing only: How it sounds. In most conversations, I tell people that if they spend 300 bucks on a stereo they'll be 85% of the way toward one that costs $100,000. If they spend $1,500 they'll be 95% of the way there.

It's the last 5% that costs the big bucks. That's true of all kinds of things. I didn't spend all the bucks because I'm an analog snob or a stereo snob, etc etc. Other than the speakers and the projector, my A/V equipment sits off in a closet where it can't be seen. People who come over to my house don't get a tour of the stereo. If they're interested, I show it to them. Otherwise, it's not a big deal.

I'm an "audiophile" because I am either blessed or cursed with very acute hearing. I'm the sort of guy who has literally driven five miles to track down a thumping bass beat that annoyed me. I once picked up my car's engine problem 10,000 miles before the mechanic found it. I heard a change in the motor's noise. I have to sleep with earplugs even on a quiet night. I won't listen to music in the background because it annoys me too much. I have to either pay attention to it or shut it off.

Half my family is that way, and the other half could sleep through a war. My mother is in the sleep-through-a-war half, and I was surprised that she was so emphatic that one time. It is what it is, so can we dispense with the morality play here?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Awesome first post, dude! 99% bullsh!t.

Better you than me. Thanks.

 

[MDS]

It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with technical accuracy. Regardless of the fact that you believe you and members of your family have super human hearing acuity the fact remains that your 'beliefs' (that is what they are) are inaccurate and easily disprovable.

 

[mtrycrafts]

..., bad fidelity is part of the charm. .

That applies to all vinyl as well, not just the 78s, don't forget. It doesn't get any exemption.

 

[Pluck]

It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with technical accuracy. Regardless of the fact that you believe you and members of your family have super human hearing acuity the fact remains that your 'beliefs' (that is what they are) are inaccurate and easily disprovable.

It's more than my belief. My hearing has been tested, and it is very, very actute. It's a point of curiousity for me, because in just about every other respect when it comes to medical kinds of things I am thoroughly average. I just happen to have this ridiculous hearing. I'm glad there's equipment for me. If you can't hear the difference between Kind of Blue on CD and Kind of Blue on vinyl, and if the corrected-speed version of side 1 sounds no different to you than the version that was originally released, more power to you.

You can spend your luxury money on other stuff. Did you happen to notice that Consumer Reports says McDonald's coffee is better than Starbucks coffee? Who's to argue? I bet you are unaware of the fact that 25% of all post-menopausal women have lost their sense of taste. My mother who could tell the difference between the analog and digital versions of Ella Fitzgerald is one of them. When she goes to a fancy restaurant, she does it for the decor and the service. I see nothing wrong with that.

I do kind of wonder why you'd hang out on an audiophile website giving grief to the subset of the subset to whom all of these otherwise inaudible things are audible, but then there's no telling what life brings, huh? Maybe you buy the stereo stuff for the blinking lights and pretty speaker cloth? That's fine, but please don't try to tell me what I can hear and what I cannot hear.

 

[Seth=L]

It's more than my belief. My hearing has been tested, and it is very, very actute. It's a point of curiousity for me, because in just about every other respect when it comes to medical kinds of things I am thoroughly average. I just happen to have this ridiculous hearing. I'm glad there's equipment for me. If you can't hear the difference between Kind of Blue on CD and Kind of Blue on vinyl, and if the corrected-speed version of side 1 sounds no different to you than the version that was originally released, more power to you. You can spend your luxury money on other stuff.

I do kind of wonder why you'd hang out on an audiophile website giving grief to the subset of the subset to whom all of these otherwise inaudible things are audible, but then there's no telling what life brings, huh?

Oh, sorry didn't realize we were conversing with someone with golden ear. Damn, that thing must be heavy to lug around. I am just messing with you, couldn't pass on that.

I do think that LP does have an advantage in some cases, not because it is LP, but rather how it was mastered and recorded. You can't expect record companies to always use the same level of quality control when making CD's or LP's, and not only that, but doesn't using Digital masters void the point of LP's anyway?

 

[Nick250]

Is it me, or does Pluck sound a lot like GreenJelly or whatever the exact name was?

 

[Pluck]

doesn't using Digital masters void the point of LP's anyway?

A digitally remastered record is a contradiction in terms. Not only that, but vinyl is a royal hassle in a whole lot of ways. I don't have one shred of emotional attachment to it. It's about the sound, and nothing else. I also don't have some class-bound thing about audiophiles. To me, an audiophile is no different than someone who owns a really expensive wheelchair, or maybe someone who's got such a bad back that he's got to sleep on one of those NASA foam mattresses.

The guy who makes my speakers, Richard Vandersteen, has a great attitude about all this stuff. Every instruction manual to his speakers includes a prominent warning about playing them too loud. He's worried about people damaging their hearing. His equipment is designed for cost economy, such that his speakers outperform models costing five and 10 times as much. His quattros go for I think about 7 grand and I recently saw a review that favorably compared them to speakers selling for more than 40 grand.

Anyway, if you guys want to go after an audio snob, pick someone other than me 'cause you've got the wrong target.

 

[davetroy]

My goodness, what have I started? I didn't mean for this to turn into a pissing match, but I guess it had to, right? That's what happens with these discussions.

By the way, has anybody on this thread spent much time visiting theaudiocritic.com? That might be the most level-headed audio site I've seen. In fact, "level-headed" seems to be the best way to describe those who have come to the conclusion that nothing matters except speakers, room acoustics and the quality of the recording. Although I'm starting to think that one more thing matters: getting the crap that's in an active pre-amp out of the way and going passive or TVC.

I suspect I just started another pissing match.

 

[Pluck]

I think you asked a perfectly reasonable question in a perfectly reasonable way. I sure didn't want to get into a thread like this, and find it stressful, disappointing and ironic. I'm going to have a look at that other site. Thanks for mentioning it.

 

[MDS]

It's more than my belief. My hearing has been tested, and it is very, very actute.

Who cares? Despite your tested and verfied super hearing, your 'facts' are 100% false. You post misleading and preposterous beliefs (like MP3 causes hearing damage) and then justify them because your hearing tested well?

You don't understand the difference between analog and digital - only that you (and your 71 year mother) 'like' the sound of vinyl. Great, buy records.

I don't particularly care if someone expresses a preference for vinyl over CDs or metal over easy listening or anything else for that matter. What I do find objectionable is those who think because their hearing tested 20 - 20 kHz, that they 'know' their preferences are because analog LPs are superior to digital and make up all kinds of technical sounding but inaccurate reasons for their preference.

I'm not the kind of guy to ask 'which speaker sounds better' but you will have a very hard time debating me on the technical aspects of computer or audio technology. All I care about is the facts, people are free to make their own choices. I will never tell you that you don't hear what you think you hear, but I will tell you when the reasons you give are totally inaccurate. Normally I just let things slide, but you are adamant in your beliefs.

How about we start at the beginning and you tell us all how analog differs from digital and how you send a sequence of zeros and ones over a wire that is an analog medium? [Hint: the word ANALOG plays prominently here].

 

[Pluck]

Look, I'm not even trying to convince you of anything. If you want to hook up your iPod to a Bose Wave Radio and call it the symphony, hey man, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Seth=L]

Look, I'm not even trying to convince you of anything. If you want to hook up your iPod to a Bose Wave Radio and call it the symphony, hey man, whatever floats your boat.

I am pretty sure he isn't going to hook an iPod up to a Bose i-dock. We don't have any love for Bose here.

There isn't anything wrong with MP3s, if they are done correctly. Some of them suck, sure, but that is just a generalization. I am listening to T.A.T.U. for example and it sounds fine, even though it is a compressed format.