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

I purchased Roberta Flack's album "First Take" in the early 70s. It has been one of my favorite albums and after 50+ years I wore it out. It was unplayable and I threw it away, not wanting anyone else to purchase it from Goodwill or wherever. To replace it, I purchased the reissue not bothering to check that it was from a digital source. Although the digitally based album sounds "good" it bothered me.

Perhaps out of sheer nostalgia, I purchased a mint- copy of the original album from an analogue master tape. I spent the morning comparing them and here is what I heard.

Many, perhaps most people, will like the digital-based vinyl album better. Everything is clearer--the attack of the guitar, the percussion, piano, and Flack's voice is right there big and bold in the middle. At first, I liked it better than the analogue-based original recording.

The analogue recording immediately sounded more muted. I wondered if perhaps there was groove wear that made it sound that way. After listening to certain cuts a few times, I realized that the clack of the drums and clang of the symbols were not muted, they were just more in the background. Flack's voice was clear but not quite as "clean edged" as the digital-based recording.

I did, however, begin to feel that something was missing in the digital recording. Although, I must mention that there was a tape hiss on the last cut on the first side, "I Told Jesus," on  the orginal analogue-based recording. And to my surprise, the digital-based recording retained that hiss. i guess they didn't want to dolby away musical artifacts with the hiss.

I had a chat with chatgpt to find out how the album was recorded. It was done in a small studio with all the instruments together as they would be in an intimate jazz club. In my mind this is a jazz album, although I am sure that more than one or even ten people on the Jazz Afficianado's forum would disagree. Anyway, it was a small, intimate recording session done in ten hours, mostly saving first takes, which is why it is called "First Take."

That made sense to me and also informed me as to why I was leaning toward the original analogue-based album. On the digital-based album, the band did not sound like a group in a small recording studio. Because each instrument was engineered seperately, there were no cues that they were in the same place.

On the orginal analogue-based recording, it sounded like instruments in one room, like any number of jazz clubs I have gone to. The drums and/or guitar, bass, etc. were sometimes drown out by other instruments, exactly as they are when you hear live music. Still, I could hear that they were all together in the same place.

The deliniation of each note was much more apparent on the digital-based album, but that is not the way real jazz sounds. When you hear live music it arrives as a kind of musical soup, all the instruments affecting the sound of the other instruments. 

Some people might say there was more "air" between the instruments on the digital-based reissue because each instrument was distinct. What was between those instruments, placed in various spots in soundstage, was blackness. And I have read reviewers who praise music coming from black space. I don't agree with them. I have heard a lot of live music, symphonic, opera, jazz, and even Joni Mitchell in a small club when she was just getting started. There is no black space between live instruments unless perhaps if you are as close as a conductor is to an orchestra. As an audience member, the music blends.

What I did hear on the analogue-based original recording was music traveling on air, and the air is kind of a halo around everything. It's not a distinct sound like digital-based music, but it is a relaxing, enjoyable sound because it feels real. 

I think that my conclusion to this experiment is that I and other analogue music lovers would prefer the analogue-based music over the digital. Many people, however, who are not accustomed to analogue music, or simply do not know the difference--have never been educated on the subject-might very well prefer the digitally-based recordding. So, as I said at the beginning of this forum, this subject is in muddy waters.

Another point is that some people including audiophiles can't hear a thing, whether they know it or not. They definitely have no need for analogue source. It's not their fault, unpleasant reality, that's all.

Seems analog has lots of flavors: various cartridge Sonics (musical, detailed, SPU, DS Audio…., stereo/mono), while digital seems from detailed/sterile to more engaging/real/musical and maybe more analog-like, presentation.  

Also, if one has both analog and digital, it seems that if one has a well sorted out analog audio chain then one must spend significant more for a DAC to get to a level of Sonics that won’t disappoint when switching back and forth with analog. 

@kennyc 

I agree that "high-end" digital is getting ridiculously expensive. And probably difficult to analyze where the cut-off line should be. To me, the difference between analogue gear is very subtle and probably a baseline is easily forgotten driving from one store to another.

@inna 

A lot of people are buying "record playerss" or analogue gear that is pretty inexpensive and probably not as good as decent digital equipment. They have been told that analogue is better and just accept it.

I have a nice analogue front end and a decent digital front end, and my speakers are quite revealing. A freind who is not an audiophile came over today and we were comparing. He liked the digitally based reissue of Roberta Flack's "First Take" better than the analogue record. As we were listening he pointed out that the tape hiss on the analogue record was apparent throughout. I had heard it under one song but not the rest. I had just accepted it as an analogue artirfact. So, that's something to consider.

This post makes no sense. How can somebody buy inexpensive/low fi equipment and think this is the best sounding format? When I had a vintage l setup, my cables cost more than this OP total vinyl rig. Who listens with cd players? I sold my top of the liine cd player when ripping music sounded better, even your trade magazine editors claimed this decades ago. 
 

Why would you listen to 16/44 today? My dac that I bought 8 years ago upsampled everything it received to DSD with 20x sampling rate. Now with a new dac, I let Roon upsample everything to DSD256. Any dsd good recording will sound better than vinyl. Some of the best vinyls you can buy had dsd mixing. 

In audio, I never listen to a so-called expert, reviewer, or especially AI, I would let my ears determine what sounded better. I could care less if the vinyl record was totally engineered all analog or if it had some DSD mixing done, if it sounds better I would buy it. Same goes for digital, if you go cheap, all you have is 16/44, it will cost you more money to get better sounding options