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

[eddie-baby]

since buying an m-scaler I think those digital irritations are now a thing of the past for me. 

This is what I have found.  The 44kHz cap is the limiting factor.  Once it is removed you have the best of both worlds.

And oh great, your digital woes are over only if you are able to spend another 3 and a half grand on another box

 

[Camverton]

And oh great, your digital woes are over only if you are able to spend another 3 and a half grand on another box

Yes the cost is irritating but ultimately worth it, at least for me, not that I paid as much as 3 1/2 grand for it. I gather other solutions are available, some much dearer, and some software solutions cheaper. Mind you, possibly cheaper than a top flight deck.

 

[tuga]

And oh great, your digital woes are over only if you are able to spend another 3 and a half grand on another box

Improving the upsampling/filtering of the digital conversion results in an analogue output which more resembles the original signal, which is another way of saying that it lowers distortion.

We don't need DACs which take higher sample rates to listen to files with higher sample rates, we need them because they produce a more accurate D/A conversion of all that CD-quality – Redbook – 16-bit/44.1kHz content, and that results in better sound.

.

Edit: in layman turns it results in a smoother sound with less artifacts, less "glare" or "glassiness" and more resolution or "detail"

 

[DomT]

Actually there is something in what tuga says. Digital is probably better resolution wise just as transistor amplifiers are technically better than valves. A valve amp dealer even told me that once, its just valves can tend to sound better and more life-like. Same applies to records probably, apart from the clicks, pops and the rest of it. Distortion or not it doesn't really matter if tonally it sounds closer to what our simple/complex brains tell us is real why would anyone stamp their feet and say its clearly not as good.

What I have come across though since we all went digital back in the 80s or whenever, much of the listening to it can become sometimes tiresome. Perhaps that's why valves and vinyl are still around. People tend to change their digital bits a lot more than when things were analog as I remember it. 

Red herring.  Once you get to a certain quality point valve and transistor amps are transparent enough.  I have just heard a Linn streamer and Rega Aethos amp through ATC 19s at a dealer.  I said to the dealer that all of the instruments have been rounded off and the system was not detailed enough as I heard much more detail at home.  He then replaced the Rega Eathos with a Krell K300i (£9k) and the detail that I had been hearing at home with my ARC valve amp suddenly appeared.  

 

[bigrod]

If you’ve never heard a really good analogue source then it’s very wrong to make a judgement between digital and analogue.. 

Every source has its benefits and drawbacks ..

Personally it all depends on the recording ..I’ve heard a lot of superb stuff over the years but at least 70% has been crap ..

 

[ziggy]

And oh great, your digital woes are over only if you are able to spend another 3 and a half grand on another box

Compare that with the cost of a top quality TT, arm, cartridge and phono stage.  Not to mention new vinyl costing more that a months high res streaming.

 

[bencat]

I am in agreement that the two types are loaded with significance to most of us and that for some digital is an insult and for some analogue is also an insult. 

One thing of which I am very sure is that those of us perhaps most of us are of a certain age grew up with vinyl and are or were familiar with how that sounds. For many they feel this is the only way things should sound . If it helps them to play more music and enjoy it then I am not going to argue. I have used CD and digital since about three months after it was introduced and listen now to only digital. Like Dom I have never bought or been inclined to seek out highly detailed DAC,s Wadia were the first I heard and which many raved over but made me want switch the system off. 

I am also averse to equipment that excels using only the best recordings and makes them sound astounding but then makes poor recordings sound unlistenable. I love music and often over the years some great songs have not been served well in recording or mastering but they are still great songs and I want a system that lets me almost ignore the poor recording and get to the music. You can hear a favourite tune on a cheap radio and it can have you singing and dancing along we all know the sound is miles away from our systems but the music is still there.

What we hear has nothing to do with how we hear Stereo and imaging are an illusion that tricks are brain to add what's missing and place things when they are not there . Anything that helps you as the listener to make that illusion more real for you is wonderful anything that does the opposite in my view needs replacing. Why people have to attack things to justify an opinion is strange Linn did with early digital and only stopped when they made their own digital items. So now it's okay ?

 

[eddie-baby]

I am in agreement that the two types are loaded with significance to most of us and that for some digital is an insult and for some analogue is also an insult. 

One thing of which I am very sure is that those of us perhaps most of us are of a certain age grew up with vinyl and are or were familiar with how that sounds. For many they feel this is the only way things should sound . If it helps them to play more music and enjoy it then I am not going to argue. I have used CD and digital since about three months after it was introduced and listen now to only digital. Like Dom I have never bought or been inclined to seek out highly detailed DAC,s Wadia were the first I heard and which many raved over but made me want switch the system off. 

I am also averse to equipment that excels using only the best recordings and makes them sound astounding but then makes poor recordings sound unlistenable. I love music and often over the years some great songs have not been served well in recording or mastering but they are still great songs and I want a system that lets me almost ignore the poor recording and get to the music. You can hear a favourite tune on a cheap radio and it can have you singing and dancing along we all know the sound is miles away from our systems but the music is still there.

What we hear has nothing to do with how we hear Stereo and imaging are an illusion that tricks are brain to add what's missing and place things when they are not there . Anything that helps you as the listener to make that illusion more real for you is wonderful anything that does the opposite in my view needs replacing. Why people have to attack things to justify an opinion is strange Linn did with early digital and only stopped when they made their own digital items. So now it's okay ?

You pretty much nailed it here Andrew. Was doing some swapping of equipment last night again and for all its vertues vinyl is still a faff and it's not really as good as modern methods, still it does have a very appealing sound to it compared to a converted digital sound. And I totally agree with the DAC thing. I bought a modern DAC it does dissect the music a bit but it's one of the better ones that doesn't make you switch off after 10 mins, in fact it's gets you hooked, trouble is the old trichord pulsar I had was a softer and smoother listen much more akin to the turntables approach digital but without the warts that goes with vinyl. I know exactly what you mean about modern dacs though, under a certain price point/design think many should even be banned They are clean, detailed, flawless but dissonant to listen to for any length of time if you ask me. Of course it's all about good system matching and you need the appropriate gear to match things, and just changing one thing sometimes the whole house of cards begins to fall. Bring back decent graphic equalisers I say they can solve a lot of issues. They're still about they just call them DSPs these days and charge you more. 

 

[Nopiano]

I’m not sure we all have an equal view of what ‘analogue’ sound actually is. Many of us grew up with LPs as our main source, so that was ‘the’ reference.  Although we always knew there was a master tape somewhere, the opportunity to hear one was negligible, even though a few copies escaped to be aired at some Hi-Fi shows.  

Today, I’m not at all certain how many Analogue masters remain, though I fear it’s a vanishingly small number.  Many have been copied, to digital presumably, and the originals have either turned to mush, or been destroyed by fire or corporate ignorance.  

I have certain treasured memories of what I thought were great recordings from the 1950s and 1960s.  I still own a few such LPs. Hearing whatever incarnation still exits today is often somewhat disappointing because what once seemed vibrant and tonally rich can easily sound a bit hollow and scrawny.  A few jazz classics and the best EMI and Decca classical recordings seem utterly timeless, but they’re very much the exception. 

What I think I’m concluding is that I’m not really sure what Analogue actually is any more.  It scarcely exists outside the occasional Direct Cut LP, replayed on a top turntable.  Are there any other flag bearers for an Analogue source, because I can’t think of any?

Curious then that the holy grail for the majority of DAC manufacturers still seems to be the most analogue sound.  Increasingly that comparison seems to me to be a rather nebulous concept.  

 

[Jules_S]

Question - in order for us to say with certainty that we are listening to "analogue" or "digital" sound, does the entire chain from point of capture to point of delivery have to exist entirely in one of those realms? What if a studio uses all-analogue equipment, except applies some compression using a digital compressor - is it no longer analogue because it's been through an A-D / D-A stage in the studio, even if it was recorded to 1/2" tape and mixed with an analogue desk? I would imagine that a vast majority of recordings (let's say since the introduction of CD as a rough date) have involved both analogue and digital equipment at some point in the process, either during recording, mixing, mastering / production. So apart from some of the small "boutique" studios and direct cuts you referred to, Nick, I'd expect most stuff is some sort of hybrid.

I get pleasure from both LP and CD at home (and to some extent, internet radio) and I'm really not bothered about which is "best". Whatever has happened down the line is something I have no control over, I either choose to buy it and listen, or I don't., But I make that choice based on the music, not the medium or the method. Everything comes out of my speakers as an analogue waveform at the end, so whatever's happened, it ends up more or less back where it started.

 

[TheFlash]

I'm loving some of the well considered, balanced, can-see-the-other-point-of-view posts here. Wondered whether I'd wandered into the wrong forum!

 

[tuga]

Curious then that the holy grail for the majority of DAC manufacturers still seems to be the most analogue sound.

I disagree. I think that audiophiles use this term because, as you mentioned, most grew up listening to vinyl and when they first listened to CD there were a) characteristics which they missed and b) distortions not found in vinyl.

The reference for many is not the master tape but the vinyl sound, and a lot of sound it has. To make matters worse, whether that own sound is good or bad depends on who you ask.

In my view there is no such thing as an analogue sound: different kinds of analogue equipment produce different combinations of distortions just like different kinds of digital equipment produce different combinations of distortions. Not only that but due to their intrinsic nature analogue equipment and digital equipment produce different kinds of distortion.

For me the benchmark is not an analogue sound, and it's not digital sound either, but a clean sound, devoid of (analogue or digital) distortions, a natural or realistic sound. If an album played on a turntable sounds like vinyl or analogue, or on a CD players sounds digital then both are bad/wrong. The best system is that which has no own sound, so I can hear the music.

If for decades we grew accustomed to the sound of reproduced music over turntables, valve amplifiers and by today's standards coloured loudspeakers it is only normal that they sound good to us, that they produce our preferred presentation. That doesn't make it more natural, more realistic, or overal/comparatively better. It's only better according to or for our own taste.

 

[TheFlash]

it is only normal that they sound good to us, that they produce our preferred presentation. That doesn't make it more natural, more realistic, or overal/comparatively better. It's only better according to or for our own taste.

Which of course applies to digital just as much as to analogue.

 

[tuga]

Which of course applies to digital just as much as to analogue.

Indeed.

 

[tuga]

Which of course applies to digital just as much as to analogue.

Actually, vinyl has a lot more own sound than digital so it will potentially sound less like the live sound of voices and instruments.

But ultimately it's the recording and the mastering which will dictate the quality of the reproduced sound.

 

[DomT]

Actually, vinyl has a lot more own sound than digital so it will potentially sound less like the live sound of voices and instruments.

But ultimately it's the recording and the mastering which will dictate the quality of the reproduced sound.

What we need is a well known test for this, to settle this nonsense once and for all. 

Wasn’t there a manufacturer of audio equipment who went to shows with a classical cellist and had the cellist play along with music from an audio system in front of a live audience? 

This obviously had to be a high end DAC company like Chord or RME or Benchmark surely? You know, clean and neutral sounding to really let the recording shine through!

But no. It was Audio Note known for their noisy coloured DACs, amps, CDPs and turntables. 
 

I am not saying that vinyl is better than digital. I am just saying that vinyl or tape is just as real sounding as digital and sometimes more real sounding. Digital doesn’t always do tone as well as it does detail.

Just like some speakers are more real aka neutral sounding than others. The best test being voice isn’t it? And who is most renowned for voice reproduction? Why it’s that manufacturer of those ‘coloured’ speakers Harbeth isn’t it?

 

[Shadders]

I disagree. I think that audiophiles use this term because, as you mentioned, most grew up listening to vinyl and when they first listened to CD there were a) characteristics which they missed and b) distortions not found in vinyl.

The reference for many is not the master tape but the vinyl sound, and a lot of sound it has. To make matters worse, whether that own sound is good or bad depends on who you ask.

In my view there is no such thing as an analogue sound: different kinds of analogue equipment produce different combinations of distortions just like different kinds of digital equipment produce different combinations of distortions. Not only that but due to their intrinsic nature analogue equipment and digital equipment produce different kinds of distortion.

For me the benchmark is not an analogue sound, and it's not digital sound either, but a clean sound, devoid of (analogue or digital) distortions, a natural or realistic sound. If an album played on a turntable sounds like vinyl or analogue, or on a CD players sounds digital then both are bad/wrong. The best system is that which has no own sound, so I can hear the music.

If for decades we grew accustomed to the sound of reproduced music over turntables, valve amplifiers and by today's standards coloured loudspeakers it is only normal that they sound good to us, that they produce our preferred presentation. That doesn't make it more natural, more realistic, or overal/comparatively better. It's only better according to or for our own taste.

Hi,

I agree, it is the distortions that people prefer.

If we assume every recording is digital, then a CD derived from that recording is the most accurate since it is just a mathematical process from the 24bit master to 16bit CD (division by a constant).

When the digital recording is transferred to the LP cutter to produce LP's, the process is not 100% accurate, and the mechanical system introduces distortions. The playback using a turntable introduces further distortions. Therefore it is impossible for the LP to be more accurate than a CD.

The negativity towards measurements is unfounded. The current measurement system tells you exactly where the final output from the DAC deviates from the digital signal input.

Some people like an excellent measuring DAC, and other people don't, but that is just a preference for either liking minimal distortion, or not liking minimal distortion.

Same for people who like a specific turntable or cartridge, as each combination presents a distortion profile that is either liked or not.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[tuga]

The negativity towards measurements is unfounded.

I think that people dislike measurements or distrust them because good objective measurements don't correlate with good/pleasing sound for those people.

Also perhaps a misunderstanding of how each measured parameter correlates with listening.

Another possibility is that if you insert an neutral or transparent DAC or amplifier in a system "balanced" for a "forgiving"/"rounded" sound it is only logical that it will unveill its shortcomings.

Finally there's the poor mastering with a lot of rock/pop.

 

[andrew s]

It may also be that sound events (making the sound and what we can measure) do not necessarily correlate with auditory events (what we hear or what we report we hear).

See hear for an area that you might think was clear cut https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4885/Spatial-HearingThe-Psychophysics-of-Human-Sound. At least read the introduction.

To  missquote  "a bird chirping may appear to move while the measured objective fact is that it remains still" or a "sound played directly in front may be heard behind a subject". 

While I am firmly in the side if science I am yet to be convinced that our understanding of "what we hear and why" is totally understood and that psychoacoustics has well understood areas as many less well understood ones.

Simple saying measurement of sound events determines auditory events may not be fully justified. 

Regards Andrew 

 

[tuga]

While I am firmly in the side if science I am yet to be convinced that our understanding of "what we hear and why" is totally understood and that psychoacoustics has well understood areas as many less well understood ones.

I agree with this.

But I still believe that the main reason is people not accepting or understanding why accuracy doesn't sound good to them.