why does analog sound so good?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Nate Najar wrote:

> I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
> wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
> records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
> also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
> crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
> sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
> come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
> very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
> and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
> sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
> hearing?

Well.... actually everything you hear is analogue. Until the human brain
can decode SPDIF or AES3 that'll continue to be the way. ;-)

Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

IMHO digital world sounds much more detailed and transparent.
....and, most of times, it is not a good thing....
I imagine digital vs. analog like close micing vs. room micing... You hear
too much details!!
Nobody ever should listen to a violin 1 foot far!! It is awful as digital
often is...

Anyway it is very difficult to talk about these things in a newsgroup.... I
think many people have written books on the subject...
F.



"Nate Najar" <nate@natenajar.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1125325387.905029.161640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
> wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
> records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
> also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
> crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
> sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
> come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
> very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
> and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
> sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
> hearing?
>
> Nate
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I completely agree with you on this Arny.
I just wanted to raise the converter issue, especially since Nate
himself was looking for better ones for his recordings a couple of days
ago.
Apologies, again, for posting through Google. I still haven't found a
way to convince the people downstairs to unblock the nntp port for me.
I live and hope!

Best Wishes,

Evangelos

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just listen to the new remix/remaster of Hotel California. Even though the
original tracks had to be analog, they managed to *192kHz * it at some point
it and then *clean it up*. It is somewhat painful to hear.

"Federico" <plokmichael@tiscali.it> wrote in message
news6GQe.115775$fm.7628633@news4.tin.it...
> IMHO digital world sounds much more detailed and transparent.
> ...and, most of times, it is not a good thing....
> I imagine digital vs. analog like close micing vs. room micing... You hear
> too much details!!
> Nobody ever should listen to a violin 1 foot far!! It is awful as digital
> often is...
>
> Anyway it is very difficult to talk about these things in a newsgroup....
I
> think many people have written books on the subject...
> F.
>
>
>
> "Nate Najar" <nate@natenajar.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1125325387.905029.161640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
> > wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
> > records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
> > also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
> > crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
> > sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
> > come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
> > very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
> > and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
> > sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
> > hearing?
> >
> > Nate
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I bet that's it- I didn't think about the mastering process for one
versus the other, but that could have a lot to do with it being dull or
lifelike. And the converters, that's also a good point! I have a $200
sony consumer cd player so i guess that's making a difference. haha
maybe I should buy a 2 channel benchmark or apogee dac for my stereo!

I'm on the lookout for a used tango if anyone knows of one available.
none on ebay as of late.

thanks again to everyone for the great advice on this ng.

Nate

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 8/29/05 11:25 AM, in article
1125329133.727734.142770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "Evangelos Himonides"
<himonides@gmail.com> wrote:

>...who knows how the D/A converter on your CD-player
> 'compares' to the signal coming out of your turntable?

I'd lay odds that, even with older convertors, WAYYYY less change happens in
the digital version...

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I think my previous attempt to post worked, so I'll try again. Forgive
me if this is redundant.

First off, I agree with the posters about the differences in mastering
being a likely reason people prefer analog versions of songs. But I
have a more general hypothesis for why people may prefer analog sound.
(Likely this is not an original idea, but since no one has mentioned it
here, I will.)

It's my idea that perhaps people prefer analog sound because of the
noise that's present in the music in the analog domain. Analog mediums
have tape hiss, turntable rumble, all of that. Phrases used to describe
analog sound typically are "warmer" and "less sterile". I'm thinking
that the noise in the analog domain feels more natural, or comfortable,
from a psychoacoustical point of view, than music playing with no noise
floor.

Has anyone ever tested this? For example, take a digital recording.
Make a second copy, but add tape hiss or low level pink noise. Will
listeners prefer the version with noise, and describe it as "warmer" or
"less sterile"? I'm curious. Does anyone know if similar tests have
been performed?

Dean

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 29 Aug 2005 14:14:25 -0700, "drichard" <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>It's my idea that perhaps people prefer analog sound because of the
>noise that's present in the music in the analog domain. Analog mediums
>have tape hiss, turntable rumble, all of that. Phrases used to describe
>analog sound typically are "warmer" and "less sterile". I'm thinking
>that the noise in the analog domain feels more natural, or comfortable,
>from a psychoacoustical point of view, than music playing with no noise
>floor.

FWIW, I'm somewhat of the same mind. Maybe more importantly
to folks like me of a certain age. But, fersure, there certainly
is some there there.

>Has anyone ever tested this? For example, take a digital recording.
>Make a second copy, but add tape hiss or low level pink noise. Will
>listeners prefer the version with noise, and describe it as "warmer" or
>"less sterile"? I'm curious. Does anyone know if similar tests have
>been performed?

Dunno, but the converse is inverse (IMO, others disagree). For
me a good A/D/A conversion sounds as good as the original A.
Just lends credence to your theory, if you believe my
observation.

Belief, said Peter Pan,

Chris Hornbeck
"What I love about Jean-Luc Godard is that he is honest, smart,
and has no humility." -butterfinger, reviewing _Pierrot le fou_, 1965

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I still feel analog with SR is still better than 24 bit/96k.
I run the analog at a low flux density and it remains very quiet.
The 12k-16k region sounds silkier with the analog.
If I'm not mistaken, the best mastering places still conclude that
analog 1/2 is still the primary mixing medium.
kevin

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Maybe you should try the latest brazilian reissue (2004). It's a double
pack that comes with the re-mastered album on CD plus a DVD-A with a
sorround mix.
It was mastered at Sterling Sound, by Tom Coyne.
You can find it at www.trama.com.br

Regards
J.P. Ambrogi
BRAZIL


Nate Najar escreveu:

Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
> records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
> also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
> crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
> sounded.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Nate Najar wrote:
> I don't mean to start what could turn into a nasty argument, but I was
> wodnering something. Last night I was listening to one of my favorite
> records- Tom Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis and Tom". I have the lp and
> also the cd. I was listening to the lp and even though my copy
> crackles like a bowl of rice krispies, I couldn't believe how good it
> sounded. I'm trying to think of words to describe it- the best I can
> come up with would be transparent, detailed and alive. It just sounded
> very natural to me. Now I own this recording on cd and so i grabbed it
> and compared the two. The cd definitely sounds good, but it didn't
> sound near as lifelike as the vinyl. Am I dreaming? what is it I'm
> hearing?
>
> Nate

If you have clean records and you can live with the noise floor, Vinyl
is a much better listening experience than CDs in my opinion. So box up
your CDs and go vinyl if you like older jazz and rock. It's really
futile to try and find parity with the CD replacements.

Your ears are not lying to you and by taking a minute to actually
listen and compare vinyl to CD you have a 'bing' moment and the obvious
becomes obvious. So as Scott Dorsey said .... "enjoy".

But your "why does analog sound so good question' could be as easily
phrased as "why do CDs sound so bad".

While it's very true that modern mastering is to blame for a lot of bad
recordings today, the truth is that the resoution of 16/44 CD is not
sufficient for good hi-fi sound and it's not hard to hear. Transfer
vinyl to CD and you'll easily be able to hear the problems even with
good converters. I do it every day have have stated my observations
here many times.

16/44 CD sound, compared to the source, loses depth & dimension and
produces empty sounding mids and highs that are not as smooth and
natural as vinyl or analog in general....... 24/96 is a great
improvement but I agree with the poster who said that 1/2 Analog Dolby
SR is superior. That's a wonderful sound if properly done.


Used Vinyl and decent turntables are not expensive. I use a Throrens in
the studio for transfers, have a pioneer in the living room and my son
has a cheap SONY in his bedroom......And sadly his cheap Sony sounds
Much better than his decent CD player comparing old records to their
'good' CD masters. That tells you something.

VB

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Vinyl_Believer" <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> While it's very true that modern mastering is to blame for a lot of bad
> recordings today, the truth is that the resoution of 16/44 CD is not
> sufficient for good hi-fi sound and it's not hard to hear. Transfer
> vinyl to CD and you'll easily be able to hear the problems even with
> good converters. I do it every day have have stated my observations
> here many times.

That's odd. I find that transcibing to CD shows up very clearly the
defficiencies of vinyl. I mean, you cando the same LP on any number of
cartridge/arm/phono-pre combinations, and get extremely different results.
Only one can be right. Conversely, you can play one CD)ex-LP) on a number
of CD players, and *except in a few extreme, and old) cases, get a very much
smalle spread of sonic differences.

>
> 16/44 CD sound, compared to the source, loses depth & dimension and
> produces empty sounding mids and highs that are not as smooth and
> natural as vinyl or analog in general....... 24/96 is a great
> improvement but I agree with the poster who said that 1/2 Analog Dolby
> SR is superior. That's a wonderful sound if properly done.

So this can be verified with dBD&D measurements of course. And that new
parameter not yet discovered or explaained by physics.

> Used Vinyl and decent turntables are not expensive. I use a Throrens in
> the studio for transfers, have a pioneer in the living room and my son
> has a cheap SONY in his bedroom......And sadly his cheap Sony sounds
> Much better than his decent CD player comparing old records to their
> 'good' CD masters. That tells you something.

But what 'something' ?

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike,

Your comments seem to agree with my hypothesis that much of what makes
analog so appealing is the inherent noise of the medium. It might be
that the s/n ratio of digital is so high that it sounds unnatural. It's
pretty rare in the real world to have a 96 db s/n ratio. In the real
world we're surrounded by ambient sound.

I'd really like to see that test performed if it hasn't already: A
listener can choose between two recordings that are identical, except
that noise has been added to one. Will they prefer the noisier version?
Will the reasons given be similar to those that analog lovers typically
use to describe why they prefer analog over digital?

Dean

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<blackburst@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125410775.795871.293710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> blackburst@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> MAYBE...
>>>
>>> An analog waveform is continuous. A digital
>>> representation is chopped up into a zillion samples.
>>
>> And maybe not. Please, let's end this branch right here.
>> (wishful thinking)
>
> You da man, as far as I'm concerned, in audio matters,
> and I'll accede to your judgment, but...
>
> Can you explain to me how I'm wrong, if I am?

> Is not an analog waveform continuous?

Depends which analog.

For example, the output of analog tape is based on a fair
number of discrete magnetic domains that have only two
states. Virtually all analog tape playback is more
discontinuous than good 16 bit digital. Virtually all analog
audio signal recording and playbakc is far moer
discontinuous than a 16 bit digital signal, properly
converted back to analog.

> Is not a digital waveform a stream of samples?

A properly reconstructed digital signal is a continuous
signal in both the amplitude and time domain.

> Thus, "sample rates"?

Think of digital as a black box with a continuous signal
going in, and a continuous signal coming out. If we are
concerned with sound quality, we really don't care what
happens in the entrails of the box. We're just intersted in
results.


>An audio pioneer who died a few years
> back opined that, as good as digital samles were, they
> had "blank spaces" or "dark spaces" between them, and
> that this may account for the subtle hearing differences
> between analog and digital.

This theory provokes a lot of laughter among knowlegable
people. There were a fair number of old-time technical
greats who just didn't get digital, or even SS.

> Just his theory.

Its a theory that can be easily proven or disproven. Too bad
for him.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1125410775.795871.293710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"blackburst@aol.com" <blackburst@aol.com> wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > blackburst@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > MAYBE...
> > >
> > > An analog waveform is continuous. A digital representation is chopped
> > > up into a zillion samples.
> >
> > And maybe not. Please, let's end this branch right here. (wishful
> > thinking)
>
> You da man, as far as I'm concerned, in audio matters, and I'll accede
> to your judgment, but...
>
> Can you explain to me how I'm wrong, if I am?
>
> Is not an analog waveform continuous?
>
> Is not a digital waveform a stream of samples? Thus, "sample rates"?
> An audio pioneer who died a few years back opined that, as good as
> digital samles were, they had "blank spaces" or "dark spaces" between
> them, and that this may account for the subtle hearing differences
> between analog and digital. Just his theory.
>

I would direct you to the theory of Claude Shannon.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

blackburst@aol.com <blackburst@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Is not an analog waveform continuous?

Yes.

>Is not a digital waveform a stream of samples? Thus, "sample rates"?

Yes, but a bandlimited anmalogue waveform can be perfectly reconstructed
from it. That is the whole nature of Shannon's Sampling Theorem.

>An audio pioneer who died a few years back opined that, as good as
>digital samles were, they had "blank spaces" or "dark spaces" between
>them, and that this may account for the subtle hearing differences
>between analog and digital. Just his theory.

That theory is bullshit. There are plenty of arguments you can make
against digital recording but that's not one.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 8/30/05 10:06 AM, in article
1125410775.795871.293710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "blackburst@aol.com"
<blackburst@aol.com> wrote:


> Is not an analog waveform continuous?
>
> Is not a digital waveform a stream of samples? Thus, "sample rates"?
> An audio pioneer who died a few years back opined that, as good as
> digital samles were, they had "blank spaces" or "dark spaces" between
> them, and that this may account for the subtle hearing differences
> between analog and digital.

Cute thought except for the small matter that it's just plain wrong.


> Just his theory.

Well, again, No.
It's NOT a theory at all.
It's his own postulation or guess, not even a well-laid out HYPOTHESIS at
that.
Were you to actually do some homework, beyond reading audiophule articles,
and look at the development into theory you'd trace and understand why what
comes out of a digital recording is indeed NOTHING like what he postulates.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here we go again.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Arny,

>>>
The fallacy here is that digital recordings of a given event
don't have any better dynamic range than the event.
<<<

That's true, of course but, as you said the medium itself is not nearly
as limiting. And obviously the ambient noise in a studio environment
(where the event likely occured) is much less than the real world.
Also, a digitally generated event (synth, etc.) can have a dynamic
range as great as the digital medium it's stored on. Analog is more
confining.

I suspect you're right that much of the love for listening to music on
analog media is about nostalgia and poor remastering. And I have no
idea of what noise, spectra, or PDF would make for a good test my
hypothesis. I don't know enough about the psychoacoustic side effects
to offer suggestions. And Scott's point about the perceived tonality
changing in such a test is interesting - but doesn't render the
hypothesis invalid, in my opinion.

There are a lot of people with very good ears (mastering engineers,
etc.) that still prefer analog media. Some prefer to get masters on 1/2
inch tape to digital. I'm trying to think of reasons why that might be
so.

I appreciate your thoughts.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1125420499.629505.62350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"drichard" <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote:

> Hi Arny,
>
> >>>
> The fallacy here is that digital recordings of a given event
> don't have any better dynamic range than the event.
> <<<
>
> That's true, of course but, as you said the medium itself is not nearly
> as limiting. And obviously the ambient noise in a studio environment
> (where the event likely occured) is much less than the real world.
> Also, a digitally generated event (synth, etc.) can have a dynamic
> range as great as the digital medium it's stored on. Analog is more
> confining.
>
> I suspect you're right that much of the love for listening to music on
> analog media is about nostalgia and poor remastering. And I have no
> idea of what noise, spectra, or PDF would make for a good test my
> hypothesis. I don't know enough about the psychoacoustic side effects
> to offer suggestions. And Scott's point about the perceived tonality
> changing in such a test is interesting - but doesn't render the
> hypothesis invalid, in my opinion.
>
> There are a lot of people with very good ears (mastering engineers,
> etc.) that still prefer analog media. Some prefer to get masters on 1/2
> inch tape to digital. I'm trying to think of reasons why that might be
> so.
>
> I appreciate your thoughts.
>

I think a lot of the preference for analog stems from our familiarity and
experience with analog. Analog recording has been highly optimized over the
years, with each little source of distortion and non-linearity addressed. We
have become accustomed to analog recording of popular music and the sound it
yields.

As digital gets the same level of refinement, we see (and hear) dramatic
improvement in the best digital recordings. But there are still growing pains
as we get used to digital recording and its new set of requirements: good
clocking, good linear converters, etc. Once digital is as well understood by
all of the practitioners of our art, I predict we won't be looking back.

Check out DSD/SACD if you want to hear where digital sound might go.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

drichard <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>Hi again, Scott. I'm having trouble tracking down his papers. A google
>search of Stanley Lipschitz wasn't very useful. Do you know offhand
>where I should look?

There might be a search engine at www.aes.org that will let you look
through old papers and preprints, but a trip to the library to look
at the JAES index will probably be easier.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"drichard" <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1125419485.151878.55630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi again, Scott. I'm having trouble tracking down his papers. A google
> search of Stanley Lipschitz wasn't very useful. Do you know offhand
> where I should look?

It's Lipshitz, not Lipschitz.

Peace,
Paul

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
newsf1qjr$8ug$1@panix2.panix.com...

> I don't understand this at all. If music is playing, I will listen to
> it. I find it really weird that people want music that is designed not
> to be listened to. Not that Erik Satie didn't predict it a century
> ago....

And Telemann was writing it several centuries ago. Tafelmusik, the Muzak of
its time.

Peace,
Paul

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yes 86 and perhaps this time you'll join in with some actual research
and observations instead of just your biases and opinions?

VB

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

> There's something magical about a really good mic feed, something incredibly
> warm and liquid and smooth and all those audiophilic words that people use
> to describe analog recording, except that this isn't a recording; it's the
> sound coming straight out of the console or preamp into the monitor amps
> into the speakers. Still not as warm, liquid and smooth as the real sound in
> a good room, but nonetheless very magical sounding.

Completely OT...but as you type do you have a long stemmed Pipe with a warm
Cherry Shag Tobacco smoking in it?<g>

> So it comes down to a non-quantifiable impression, one which is shared by a
> lot of top-end mastering engineers. When digital finally catches up (and it
> will, eventually) we'll all heave a sigh of relief, since it's a lot more
> convenient.

I personally believe the preference for or against digital, and how it stacks up
against analog is in direct proportion to ones ability to withstand high levels
of compression and flat line dynamics.