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’ve seen reports that digital to vinyl, the vinyl sounds better than the original digital. Seems very strange if true - adding another process improves Sonics?

audio-b-dog, I think some also buy analogue because it is now sort of a fashion thing, maybe a sign of nostalgia, they don't care much if at all about sound quality.

But digital is getting better and better, so yes you do need both, a lot of music is available only in digital. 

I don't buy modern reissues on vinyl, I look for the first pressings or other old pressings if the first pressing cannot be found or/and too expensive.

I am a tape man. Tape hiss, just a little of it, is music to my ears.

Some tape hiss, some tube noise, it all adds to the realism. Nothing is perfect.

I have a few first edition and promotional Japanese records from 1970s that are incredibly quiet but not totally quiet. Just great, that's exactly how I like it.

@newton_john 

At some point I forget about all the science and technical arguments and it comes down to what I hear. In this thread I have mentioned an album that I thought sounded good that came from a digital file. I have been listening to recorded music for a long, long time. For many years I only played digital music. Now I mostly play vinyl, analogue music.

I listen to what I like. I'm not swayed by fashion. On the whole, I think vinyl that comes directly from an analogue source sounds better--done well, of course--sounds better than digital in any form. At least from what I've heard.

I have purchased vinyl recordings before I knew that some records came from digital sources, and I could tell they were not from an analogue source and I did not like the digital artifacts. You can, however, find digital recordings than sound better than analogue recordings. There are all kinds of variables.

But I have never heard any digital recording that sounds better than the best analogue recordings. The caveat is that you and I could sit side by side listeining to the same recordings and disagree on which sounds better. You live with your ears and I live with mine. 

There are no such things as "digital music" or "analog music".  There is only music. The rest is how it got there. Probably there should be a separate forum on Audiogon for arguments about digital v analog. Then one would know where not to go.

Except for the odd "audiophile" reissue like 50, 60 70s blue note albums I only buy excellent or NM  2nd hand vinyl. Notably,  Neil Young still releases analogue LPs but as mentioned above, unless stated otherwise, modern vinyl releases are mastered from digital files.

I made the mistake some years ago of buying jazz albums from labels that were not well known and being disappointed  with the SQ. It came to light that they were just pressing CD recordings to vinyl.

I replaced  my very hi end analogue replay system because digital matched it most of the time.