Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Andrew, enjoy your DV-50S and let sleeping dogs lie.

Having owned your DV-50S, yes, analog is better, no question. However, it does take much more work to set up properly, and keep the LP's clean.

If you have any doubt's, drop by again, when I have time, and I'll be happy to demo my analog rig. :-)

Cheers,
John

Here is an update on this thread. The originator, Musicaudio (Andrew), after being very impressed by the Esoteric DV-50S, as stated in the beginning, became much less impressed after owning it for a week, and has now sold it.

So I guess that means....analog wins. Wahoo!

:-)

Cdwallace, you will not find any objectivist charts to show you the difference between digital and analog. If that is what you are looking for, it doesn't exist. If you would rather not be bothered with analog, that is fine also.

I concur with Mike, music is art, and cannot help but be judged subjectively. There are no charts to explain why someone prefers a Van Gogh over a Picasso. No charts to show why someone prefers chocolate over vanilla. No graphs will show why one prefers a convertible over a hard top automobile. If someone claims that driving with the wind blowing through ones hair is the best way to drive, should he have to provide scientific evidence?

Loosen your collar, live a little. If you do not have the funds for both, choose the format that suits your lifestayle best. Then just relax and enjoy it.

My system is not nearly as SOTA as Mike's, but I do have a fairly balanced budget between analog and digital. My digital rig is about 2/3 the cost of my analog rig. I also listen to digital 75% of the time. However, I, and everyone who has heard my system, even non-audiophiles, believe the analog sounds better, more-involving, than digital. I have no charts, but I and others talk less and listen more when analog is playing versus digital. I have no color charts to prove this, or explain why, it just is.

So why do I listen to what I claim is inferior sonically 75% of the time.....good question, Iask myself that often.
The answer is two fold, first, digital has analog beat handily in the convienience factor. I'm either busier (multi-tasking) or just lazy sometimes (70 min play times vs. 20 min), or sometimes it's software that I don't have on vinyl. Secondly, my digital system does sound very good, it's not exactly a Best Buy special. One only notices the shortcomings when comparing directly to analog. I'm only dissapointed in my digital system if I try to switch to digital immediately after listening to vinyl. If I'm just in the house, and reading or working, and fire up the rig with digital, it sounds great.

Maybe you are best just to go with digital. Many do, for the sake of convienience and/or $$$. If you don't have the analog to A/B for yourself in your own system, you will probably never know any better and save yourself some dough.

Cheers,
John

I just perused all of D_Edwards 'digital answers' and found no facts, simply published opinions. Seems the meat and potatoes are simply a cardboard photo.

So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?

Surely they must miss you at Audio Review.

Cdwallace, what exactly is the point of your ramblings? I see the 'Cd' in your moniker, so it seems you are a digital fan. Are you simply trying to convince yourself that you made the correct choices?
If it's that simple, you win. Digital is your preference, enjoy it.

I, and thousands others, prefer the sound of vinyl. It's no contest on many occasions. You're welcome to enjoy your digital, but OTOH, you cannot prove that digital sounds better either. So what is the point of this futile excercise?

Cheers,
John

Such an emotive subject. An old versus a new approach.

I catch myself sometimes saying to the kids, "Well, in my day, things were much better..." but things do move on, and the kids just roll their eyes...

VHS versus DVD.
Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection.
Film versus digital camera
Letter versus an email
Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD
A fax versus an electronic file.
Natural fabrics versus man made
Horse versus motor car
Balloon versus aeroplane
Organic food versus industrial production
Pen and ink versus ballpoint pen
Newspaper versus internet news
Coal versus Oil
FM Radio versus MTV
Slide rule versus Calculator
Stone versus concrete
Candle versus lightbulb
Carbon fibre composites versus wood sports gear
Leather Ski boots versus plastic
Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

Apples versus Oranges???

11-11-06: Cdwallace
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.

Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!
Cdwallace (Threads | Answers)

It's also what makes digital, digital. For you haven't come up with any proof that digital sounds better.

So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?

Too me two channel is a joke, fact.

D_edwards (System | Answers)

To me multi-channel is a joke, fact.

Been there done that. I went through the multi-channel phase several years ago, didn't like it. It doesn't properly represent a live orchestra. It felt like I was sitting in the middle of the orchestra instead of sitting in the 10th row. Listening from the audience is a more natural experience, fact.

FWIW, feel free to hype how great your receiver sounds all you want.
I'm glad it makes you happy, fact.
It is however still a receiver, with all the limitations of a receiver, fact.
I'm sure you opinions would be much better 'received' on Audioreview.com, fact.

If surround was not more convincing than stereo, then big movie theatres would never have adopted these expensive systems...
Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies.
It's just not for music.

11-13-06: D_edwards
"I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies.
It's just not for music."

Explain the difference?

Seems that struck a nerve, so I'll explain. I do find that surround sound helps to place me in the movie scene better. I'm on the beach in 'Saving Private Ryan', etc. However, I always found it uncomfortable when listening to music. I went through the surround sound phase for a year or so about 6 years ago. Trying high end pre/pro's from Proceed, Classe, Anthem, etc. Yet the music just didn't sound right. Maybe if you are trying to recreate the sound of a Dance club and be 'in the middle' of it, this is the way to go. If trying to recreate a live orchestra, it doesn't work. I want the orchestra performing in front of me, not all around me. I also found the center channel to throw off imaging, not inhance it.

The biggest hurdle though was tonality. No, I have never heard a receiver, or pre/pro for that matter, recreate the natural tone sound of an instrument as some high end stereo gear. I also find that vinyl is better suited at recreating this natural tone than digital. Strings are the best example of this. To me, massed strings sound congested and edgy through even $10K+ digital systems. A receiver or pre/pro may not be revealing enough to show this though, as many of them digitize the signal anyway.
FWIW, Digitally Mastered LP's also suck at recreated massed strings and instumental tonal colors, IMHO.

You really think your VA's and BAT gear are THAT much better than my surround receiver? How's that Judas Preist song go? "tell you right now, you got another thing comin'"

While I'm honored that you are researching my equipment, I guess I must admit that no, there isn't THAT much of a difference if Judas Priest is what you're listening to.

I KNOW my system can play orchestral music as well as your two channel system. maybe i'd have to use the $1500 receiver just for a safe discerbable margin. You own BAT gear and all the limitations of that BAT gear...fact

This doesn't even require a response. If your receiver sounds good to you, you are fortunate indeed, LOL.
'nuff said.

When watching a movie, I find myself distracted by the video screen, so musical tonality is not as big an issue here. Especially since music tends to be digitized and in the background of the dialog in the movie.

If digital, receivers and pre/pro's make you happy, count your blessings. I have friends who are perfectly happy drinking a Budweiser. I much prefer a good micro-brew. It would be great if a Bud tasted just as good to me, it would save me a few pennies.

You, Cd and Shardorne are welcome to your opinions, as long as I'm entitled to mine. It does seem as though you are lost in this forum though. You may have an easier sell with the surround/digital package of ideas in the digital and/or video forums as opposed to the analog forums.

I normally write IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) in my responses. I stopped doing that in this thread because you all haven't quite grasped that yet. You are more than welcome to your opinion, but don't try to force your opinion on others by calling it a fact. Published DBT results don't mean much to those that don't belive the method is valid, and no I won't get started, it also is a waste of time to debate this.

I find it hard to believe that you cannot see how pointless this all is. You will not convince me that digital/surround is better anymore than I can convince you that analog/stereo is better. Obviously neither one of us is a weak minded sheep. So again I ask, what is the point? I almost feel like I'm back on Audioreview.com arguing cables, DBT's and other meaningless nonsense. Not that your opinions, or mine, are nonsense. It's just that the argument never ends, and no one changes their mind. It just seems to me like a dog chasing his tail. I'm done chasing my tail, feel free to try and convert analog purists to your digital/surround philosophy. Let me know how you make out. :)

Sure, there are some that can sell snow to the Eskimo's, but you three aren't the ones.

Peace out,
John