Does the human ear prefer analog or digital (converted) sound?

[eddie-baby]

Without turning other threads into vinyl vs CD or whatever bun fights on the side, thought I'd do another thread. It's been beaten to death already this as most things have, but found a short article as well that some might be interested in.

https://www.blueaura.co.uk/blog/human-ear-prefer-analog-digital-sound/

We have been touching on this in other threads with things such as advances in technology and some expensive to very expensive DACs and their stepped waveforms. As well as brief chat about why some audiophiles have ditched vinyl.

Right my view is in general digital is better, more accurate, dynamic and flawless not to mention versatile, to name a few. But I've been playing with a 'new/old' turntable for a while now with multiple different cartridges and have to say even with very low cost cartridges it can do things that not even some of the best DACs I've ever heard can do. Records with all their idiosyncrasies just present sound that digital can't. And instruments and human voice can sound very special to my ear. I think I've been listening to digital so long now I've totally forgot what analog can do in a good system. It really is something listening to records again, it's not all 'amazing' far from it some of it's total naff, but the parts that are good, really are! Don't want to sound like a convert I don't think that'll ever happen again, but there's certainly more than worthy space for it still going forward in the modern digital world I would say.

And this is just the sound now, there's obviously the connection, ritual, and collector, cover work etc aspect as well that's what people love as well, but it is two separate things listening to analog over digital to analog conversion.

 

[Camverton]

He lost me at “The difference between analogue and digital waves is that analog waves are smooth and continuous and digital waves are stepping, square and. When something intervenes with the original reverberations of a collection of notes as the brain seems to with digital, a part of the music is lost. ” Perhaps he has only heard of NOS DACs!

As ever it is the implementation that matters and it seems to me to be the case as much with digital as vinyl. As for which my ear prefers listening to classical music, digital has always been a clear winner because of its absence of surface noise, whoomphs (caused by those little craters) end of side distortion, fluffed up styli, having to change sides in the middle of a movement in a Mahler symphony. I have come to the conclusion that digital can sound slightly irritating/fatiguing but not as irritating as the aforementioned vinyl ones, but since buying an m-scaler I think those digital irritations are now a thing of the past for me. 

At least I hope so… 

 

[eddie-baby]

As ever it is the implementation that matters and it seems to me to be the case as much with digital as vinyl. As for which my ear prefers listening to classical music, digital has always been a clear winner because of its absence of surface noise, whoomphs (caused by those little craters) end of side distortion, fluffed up styli, having to change sides in the middle of a movement in a Mahler symphony. I have come to the conclusion that digital can sound slightly irritating/fatiguing but not as irritating as the aforementioned vinyl ones, but since buying an m-scaler I think those digital irritations are now a thing of the past for me. 

At least I hope so… 

Yes! 100% agree and for classical that is probably a night and day situation of overall better on all counts. Fluffed up stylus certainly are a pain, static dirt on the record, imperfections, whatever, it's all coming back to me slowly Such a different experience full analog though. And 'human voice' the thing that I've ditched so many 'good DACs' because of it sounded irritable It's like a case of you'd never have found the right DAC mate (although some are extremely good can't really complain that much). But it's a bit of a case of some of what you were/are longing is actually only on a record

I hope I don't think of exploring tapes again as well. That was my 'main' medium for many many years. Had some great tape decks over the years that sounded phenomenal, I'm probably forgetting how good, it was that long ago.

 

[tuga]

It is an unquestionable fact that digital recording has the potential to be far more accurate than analogue recording.

But which one sounds better is matter of preference; in other words, it depends on who you ask. It often depends on the listener's age and his favourite genres.

 

[eddie-baby]

It is an unquestionable fact that digital recording has the potential to be far more accurate than analogue recording.

But which one sounds better is matter of preference; in other words, it depends on who you ask. It often depends on the listener's age and his favourite genres.

Yes but we are analogue or more organic actually creatures, and digital now, CD or higher resolution as it is now available with streaming or whatever is electronic which is then converted back to an analogue signal we can listen to.

I'm sure there'll be a point where a hi-res file will be so wide and so flawlessly converted that even an analogue or organic animal can never tell the difference between it and real life. For now though we have our digital mediums and converters we use for music playback.

Analogue sources with their nasties aside as some have all ready been mentioned are still closer to organic than anything digitally stored and converted. Is this why perhaps some people find it more pleasing to the ear or perhaps more human like, and not all of it obviously, as its quite apparent you are listening to a record rather than a real life event (well you are listening to a real life event just a recorded one that's all).

 

[MVJ]

I don't think ears have anything to do with preference or choice at the end of the day it is a sensory tool which is connected to the brain and that decides whats it likes. 
 

 

[eddie-baby]

I don't think ears have anything to do with preference or choice at the end of the day it is a sensory tool which is connected to the brain and that decides whats it likes. 
 

Yes ears are just an interface to a complex brain of course and we know everyone sensors are different from hearing tests, basically no one hears exactly the same. And the fact is out brains are all wired slightly differently as well. Thing is we have to generalise somewhere and that can be seen in peoples behaviour, what are they buying and listening to. And what are they spouting on about on forums  

 

[MVJ]

I think you just answered your own question there Eddie we indeed are all different

 

[tuga]

Yes but we are analogue or more organic actually creatures, and digital now, CD or higher resolution as it is now available with streaming or whatever is electronic which is then converted back to an analogue signal we can listen to.

I'm sure there'll be a point where a hi-res file will be so wide and so flawlessly converted that even an analogue or organic animal can never tell the difference between it and real life. For now though we have our digital mediums and converters we use for music playback.

Analogue sources with their nasties aside as some have all ready been mentioned are still closer to organic than anything digitally stored and converted. Is this why perhaps some people find it more pleasing to the ear or perhaps more human like, and not all of it obviously, as its quite apparent you are listening to a record rather than a real life event (well you are listening to a real life event just a recorded one that's all).

If you press a vinyl record from a digital file it will sound like vinyl, if you digitalise a vinyl record the CD or file will sound like vinyl. Which one do you think will sound more like the mic feed or the master tape: vinyl or digital?

Vinyl('s shortcomings), or the use of vintage analogue mics, mic-pres and desks may sound good or make the listening experience more stimulating to some people and/or in certain particular cases but it isn't because it's more "organic" (wth), that is an absolute confabulation. Perhaps because recorded music cannot sound like the real thing and some euphonic distortions enhance the experience?

In any case it has nothing to do with organic or nature or anything of the sort. I didn't read the blog entry you posting after reading the absurd excerpt that Camverton quoted...

Some people like vinyl others digital. Let's keep it at that and not make up fantastic absurdities to make ourselves feel good about it.

I truly recommend that you read something more informative and factually correct on this subject:

Analogue Warmth - The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

 

[eddie-baby]

Yes ok but there is more to it though, it's nothing magical or a made up fantastic absurdity as you suggest people make up. If it was that simple designers would just all be aiming for the same target. Humans are not binary. Otherwise someone would make a song up and everyone else who was a musician would be able to replicate it identically. Its the same for equipment you cant measure something with primitive instruments that are limited to measuring frequency or whatever. It will give you something that is only good to that instrument that measured it. You can compare to something else that's been measured with it but its still a limited measurement.   

As you say though if its come from digital master put onto a record its still the digital file your listening to just via a record. So the way it's reproduced from that record is obviously the bit that's getting to or brain rather than the DAC it came from to make it an analogue record.

 

[Dazed&Confused]

I haven't read the article.  I doubt that analogue versus digital would be be relevant to the ear - the structures inside the ear, such as the drum and the vibrating hairs, would work equally well for both.  What matters is the structure and processing of the auditory parts of the brain.  A neuron either fires or it does not, there is no variable magnitude, which makes it digital, doesn't it?  So why would the brain prefer analogue?  

 

[andrew s]

Yes but we are analogue or more organic actually creatures...

Well actually were are not analog. Out nervous system requires thresholds to be reached before neurons fire and they then do so discretely. 

Regards  Andrew 

 

[eddie-baby]

Well actually were are not analog. Out nervous system requires thresholds to be reached before neurons fire and they then do so discretely. 

Regards  Andrew 

By a neurologists definition we probably are organic/electronic, it's electrical impulses in the brain that controls thoughts and feelings, isn't it? Don't even begin to know enough about it to argue though. Still it's way more advanced than even what the most advanced digital systems that are available, at the moment anyway And when they do become better we wont care about our digital/analog it'll just be a real, speakers might have moved on a bit then as well.


[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

 

[tuga]

Yes ok but there is more to it though, it's nothing magical or a made up fantastic absurdity as you suggest people make up. If it was that simple designers would just all be aiming for the same target. Humans are not binary. Otherwise someone would make a song up and everyone else who was a musician would be able to replicate it identically. Its the same for equipment you cant measure something with primitive instruments that are limited to measuring frequency or whatever. It will give you something that is only good to that instrument that measured it. You can compare to something else that's been measured with it but its still a limited measurement.   

As you say though if its come from digital master put onto a record its still the digital file your listening to just via a record. So the way it's reproduced from that record is obviously the bit that's getting to or brain rather than the DAC it came from to make it an analogue record.

You are confused. First of all, it's vinyl that's the primitive technology, not the measuring instruments. Secondly your brain has no way of telling if a sound is analogue or digital, it only recognises different types of distortion.

Do you still watch VHS tapes?

 

[eddie-baby]

Do you still watch VHS tapes?

You're hilarious!

 

[tuga]

By a neurologists definition we probably are organic/electronic

Which neurologist? What have you been smoking?

By the way, vinyl is also not continuous, the needle is jumping from molecule to molecule... :rofl:

 

[tuga]

You're hilarious!

You're the one who brought up the old technologies? So, do you? Surely it must be more organic than Bluray, it's analogue.

 

[andrew s]

By a neurologists definition we probably are organic/electronic, it's electrical impulses in the brain that controls thoughts and feelings, isn't it? Don't even begin to know enough about it to argue though. Still it's way more advanced than even what the most advanced digital systems that are available, at the moment anyway And when they do become better we wont care about our digital/analog it'll just be a real, speakers might have moved on a bit then as well.


 

The electrical impulses in the brain are discrete (digital) and individually they are quite simple and chemically controlled. What sets it apart is the quantity and interconnectedness of the neurons in the brain. 

The auditory reception system is a fairly simple but is wired to more areas of the brain than any other sense. This alone makes hearing a complex area to study.

Regards Andrew 

 

[eddie-baby]

Which neurologist? What have you been smoking?

By the way, vinyl is also not continuous, the needle is jumping from molecule to molecule... :rofl:

[SIZE=12pt]You're obviously a genius Tuga as well as a good comedian who's wasted writing on forums.  [/SIZE]