Does analogue ultimately beat digital?

[Hero Removals Brighton]

Hi all, new to this excellent forum, love the simplistic lay out, Hifi wigwam did my head in, so hard to find relevant stuff on there! Anyway, lately I've been tweaking my system somewhat, and am finally starting to get a taste of what real hifi is, after buying a rather special cd player, and also a somewhat cheaper cart and arm set up, which amazes at it's price point. So I ask the question, due to cds inherent glare and stridency, and realising one doesn't have to buy silly priced MC carts to get a 'high end' sound, isn't analogue inherently better than digital? The main reason I ask is because I've seen posts asking for 'what cd player gives a warm yet detailed sound', and the answer was mostly, one's costing about £5k+ Yet my direct drive TT and £200 cart sound pretty damn good, yet my £2500 cd player, whilst impresses with it's presence and unrivalled detail, continues to jolt with its stridency.

 

[Woodface]

No

 

[Anh]

You don't need someone else to tell you what medium sounds better to you, or unless you are deliberatly trying to set off a heated debate on here?

 

[Octavian]

Hi all, new to this excellent forum, love the simplistic lay out, Hifi wigwam did my head in, so hard to find relevant stuff on there! Anyway, lately I've been tweaking my system somewhat, and am finally starting to get a taste of what real hifi is, after buying a rather special cd player, and also a somewhat cheaper cart and arm set up, which amazes at it's price point. So I ask the question, due to cds inherent glare and stridency, and realising one doesn't have to buy silly priced MC carts to get a 'high end' sound, isn't analogue inherently better than digital? The main reason I ask is because I've seen posts asking for 'what cd player gives a warm yet detailed sound', and the answer was mostly, one's costing about £5k+ Yet my direct drive TT and £200 cart sound pretty damn good, yet my £2500 cd player, whilst impresses with it's presence and unrivalled detail, continues to jolt with its stridency.

Cd does not have inherent glare or stridency. Do not elevate your personal opinions into universal truths.

 

[Big Tabs]

Cd does not have inherent glare or stridency.

That is what I thought as well.

jump to the last page, where the answer is always mastering/production.

 

[Fourlegs]

Hi all, new to this excellent forum, love the simplistic lay out, Hifi wigwam did my head in, so hard to find relevant stuff on there! Anyway, lately I've been tweaking my system somewhat, and am finally starting to get a taste of what real hifi is, after buying a rather special cd player, and also a somewhat cheaper cart and arm set up, which amazes at it's price point. So I ask the question, due to cds inherent glare and stridency, and realising one doesn't have to buy silly priced MC carts to get a 'high end' sound, isn't analogue inherently better than digital? The main reason I ask is because I've seen posts asking for 'what cd player gives a warm yet detailed sound', and the answer was mostly, one's costing about £5k+ Yet my direct drive TT and £200 cart sound pretty damn good, yet my £2500 cd player, whilst impresses with it's presence and unrivalled detail, continues to jolt with its stridency.

@TheMod Hi and nice to see you over here. One thing that slightly does my head in about the analogue vs digital debate is that these days most of the analogue sources, ie vinyl records, are actually digital recordings transferred to vinyl.

I am sat here though listening to my digital source system this evening and there is no hint of the stridency to which you refer. And yet I do know what you mean about some digital sources and they can be rather fatiguing but that is by no means a general fault and is rather just a problem with some digital systems, mostly due to overlaid noise causing issues in the conversion process leading to stridency and glare. Of course that does not fit well with the 1’s are 1’s and 0’s are 0’s brigade who think that there is no room for refinement of their digital systems chosen solely on bare specifications.

 

[Hero Removals Brighton]

@TheMod Hi and nice to see you over here. One thing that slightly does my head in about the analogue vs digital debate is that these days most of the analogue sources, ie vinyl records, are actually digital recordings transferred to vinyl.

I am sat here though listening to my digital source system this evening and there is no hint of the stridency to which you refer. And yet I do know what you mean about some digital sources and they can be rather fatiguing but that is by no means a general fault and is rather just a problem with some digital systems, mostly due to overlaid noise causing issues in the conversion process leading to stridency and glare. Of course that does not fit well with the 1’s are 1’s and 0’s are 0’s brigade who think that there is no room for refinement of their digital systems chosen solely on bare specifications.

Most of my records are at least 20 years old

 

[Hero Removals Brighton]

Cd does not have inherent glare or stridency. Do not elevate your personal opinions into universal truths.

Wasn't attempting such a grand project sir! Just asking around.

 

[Sloop John B]

Did someone just say Jehovah ?

.sjb

 

[Big Tabs]

Most of my records are at least 20 years old

More images

Label: Elektra – 960 774-1, Elektra – EKT 44
Format:
Vinyl, LP, Album, Stereo, Matte Sleeve
Country: Europe
Released: 1988


From inner sleeve:
Digitally recorded and mixed at Powertrax, Hollywood, CA.


sounds great, whatever.

 

[jimbob75]

No, but vinyl sure beats the shit out of CDs and streaming. I mean, have you tried to roll a joint on a CD?

 

[Mr Pig]

Both can sound good but I'd say it's easier to get vinyl sounding nice than digital.

 

[MikeMA]

Yes

 

[daytona600]

Recording , Mastering important Analogue or Digital

 

[Mike1965]

If it's available only on one format that format wins.
If it's available on both formats the best sounding one wins.
Doesn't matter that much really what wins as long as I'm enjoying what I'm hearing.

 

[simon g]

No

If you don't like your digital front end; find something else. Or just use analogue only.

 

[Tarzan]

Both can sound good but I'd say it's easier to get vinyl sounding nice than digital.

l respectfully disagree Sir- however the rewards can be well.... extremely rewarding, perhaps that is why some folk like records, it is something one has to work at.....


l think.

 

[oldius]

There are many false truths in hifi: valves are smooth, while SS is harsh; analogue is warm and digital is strident, just as two examples. We all have different perceptions, and we all have different gear and different rooms. The only solution is what you will enjoy listening to in the long term. If you are finding your current situation not to your liking, perhaps consider hosting a bake-off to listen to alternative digital sources.

 

[Southeastern]

Both can sound good but I'd say it's easier to get vinyl sounding nice than digital.

Agree. Costs one hell of a lot more to get digital to sound as natural as vinyl does.

 

[Mr Pig]

Agree. Costs one hell of a lot more to get digital to sound as natural as vinyl does.

Even a fairly cheap turntable usually sounds smooth and easy on the ear, perhaps to the point of being boring but the err on the safe side. Digital is the opposite. There are far more nasty sounding CD players than turntables. The reason is very simple. Unlike a turntable, digital distortion is not analogous to the music signal and grates on the ear more. A poor turntable might sound dull and uninteresting but poor digital is truly horrible.

Of course there are horrible turntables and lovely digital sources. That's not the point. It's the type of distortion they can produce that matters.