The muddy waters of Analogue vs. digital today


With new technology, everything is changing so fast it is hard to keep up with new recordings. I have had a turntable all of my audiophile life, although I admit I played mostly CDs for many years. It was only since I upgraded my analogue system to a certain degree in the mid-nineties, that I could hear that records sounded better than CDs. It wasn’t a very expensive upgrade, a used Rega 3 with glass platter, new Sumiko Bluepoint Special, and a floor demo ARC PH-3. Probably somewhere around $3K. Mid-90s remember.

Now my system is very upgraded and I can hear more differences between vinyl and streaming at high resolution. CDs have kind of been left in the dust. 44.1 resolution sounds kind of tinny and flat. I listen if that’s my only choice, but I can easily hear the difference. I credit myself with a decent ear after doing critial listening for 30+ years. My ear is not as good as most reviewers, but you'll understand why it’s good enough to write a forward to this thread.

I won’t go through the differences I hear between analogue and digital, because you’ve heard it all before. What I want to talk about is my confusion in this new recording landscape. 

I had purchased Roberta Flack’s "First Take" when it came out and I’d kept the record for more than forty years when I realized it had really seen its better days. Basically, it was unlistenable, even after a few washes in the Degritter. I looked at near mint copies of the record and they were quite expensive. Then I saw that there was a new pressing for a reasonable price.

I was listening to the new pressing of "First Take" a few days ago when I realized it sounded overly compressed at the high end. I asked my new audiophile friend chatgpt if the record was pressed from an analogue source. Nope. I was basically listening to a digital recording pressed into vinyl. Chatgpt says that most records made after 1980 come from digital sources. So, I found a reasonablly priced orignal pressing of "First Take." My grandaugher in college can have the digital one.

Today I was playing a fairly new recording of Gustavo Dudamel and Yuja Wang playing Rachmaninoff’s Variations on a Theme by Paganini. I live in L.A. and have been lucky enough to see Dudamel live many times and Yuga Wang several times. It’s a beautiful recording, wide and deep and detailed and musical. I pronounced it the best classical recording I owned. But it was put out recently. So, I checked with my audiophile buddy chatgpt. The record is from a very high resolution digital source. Chatgpt says that digital can sound more analogue on vinyl because the engineers roll off the high end a bit.

So, now things are more than a bit confusing. Do I buy a recording from before the 80’s on expensive vinyl or might it actually sound better streaming at 192 kHz? If you listen to Patricia Barber’s "Clique" at 172 kHz, it sounds pretty good. So good, i have not bothered to go out and buy it on vinyl.

Does anyone else feel a similar confusion in this modern market, and do you have any suggestions for negotiating it?

audio-b-dog

Asking my audiophile buddie chatgpt, here is a much deeper explanation of "air."

In audiophile language, “air” usually means three related things:

1. Space around instruments

With a good analog record, you often hear a halo of ambience around a voice or instrument.

For example:

  • A singer isn’t just a voice in the speaker.

  • You hear the room around the voice—the tiny reverberations and decay.

That sense of space between instruments is what people call air.

2. Natural high-frequency decay

Analog often reproduces the trailing edge of sound—the fade of cymbals, piano harmonics, breath in a saxophone—with a smoother envelope.

Listeners experience that as:

  • openness

  • breath

  • shimmer

Those impressions get summarized as air.

3. Depth of the soundstage

Good analog playback often gives a sense that sound extends behind the speakers, not just left and right.

When that happens, the stage feels less packed together, which again reads as air.


Why analog can create that impression

A few technical reasons may contribute:

1. No brick-wall filtering
Digital audio requires steep filters near the Nyquist frequency. These can subtly alter phase relationships in the upper treble.

Analog tape and vinyl roll off more gradually.

2. Harmonic behavior
Analog systems add very small amounts of low-order harmonic distortion, which the ear often interprets as richness or spaciousness.

3. Continuous waveform vs sampling
Even though high-resolution digital is extremely accurate, the reconstruction process can slightly alter micro-timing cues that help the brain locate space.


Your system is actually very capable of revealing this

Given what you’re running:

  • VPI Prime Signature 21

  • Shyla cartridge

  • Pass Labs XP-25

  • Sonus Faber Olympica Nova V

that setup is exactly the sort of system where people start talking about air, bloom, and dimensionality. You're hearing the strengths of analog done well.


One more thing

Your description is actually classic audiophile vocabulary. Reviewers use it constantly.

You’ll see phrases like:

  • “more air around the instruments”

  • “air and sparkle in the top octave”

  • “the hall ambience floated in the air”

Muddy Waters, blues singer. One of the best re-issue albums from MoFi, ever.

@audio-b-dog 

Gustavo Dudamel and Yuja Wang playing Rachmaninoff’s Variations on a Theme by Paganini

By coincidence I ordered the 3-record set back in January but it is yet to arrive.  I did not get it just for the cover pic, honestly laugh 486 4763_YujaWang_Dudamel_eBooklet_th_01_06fin.indd

I note the brochure credits include an Immersive Mix Engineer.  It would not surprise me if Deutsche Grammophon later releases a Pure Audio Blu-ray disk with Dolby Atmos, as they did for Olivier Latry playing the Notre Dame organ.

@yoyoyaya 

my post about sampling rates is about audio

Yes, you nailed the confusion.  It is generally accepted that the upper frequency limit of human hearing is a pure sine wave around 20-kHz which under the Nyquist doctrine, requires rather more than 40-kHz sampling rates.

There is another view that if we stick to the time domain, where music resides, we can detect transients much sharper than that.  The ear / brain works in mysterious ways