Sounds more analog

[AudioGremlin]

Originally Posted by djwhog

Dan this is a great thread.[emoji106]
To me I like the term "sounds more analog". To me that represents that the sound system is more natural and realistic, not strained or straining and one's ears, and a person does not tire from harshness or over exaggeration etc. You also feel like you can listen for hour after hour and not feel worn out and beat up. The dynamics are life like, tones are real not artificial in nature. Nothing is exaggerated in comparison to one another, and the sound has a certain smoothness and place in time and space.

Lastly to me the sounds arrive at the ear in a placement that is in balance and harmony 3d if one was to graph it. You not only hear the separation from right to left, but top to bottom and front to back, and sounds arrive at a speed that is relative to the instruments and frequencies of the sources. Not all sound travels at the exact same speed, there are fluctuations. Analog stays true to that.

Yes a great digital system can do that too, but t always seems to me that while on paper it has the specs, dynamics etc, a great Vinyl recording on a great table with a great cartridge and of course a great phono stage is so life like. So $ for $ I would agree that digital wins out, but at some point if Chris Botti was playing his horn or Gilmour was playing the 12 string Martin in your studio unplugged, now that is pure analog right Try and recreate that at any price point.

Yes it may be a term a lot of audio reviewers like to hearken back to, but it is very true and means volumes for those of us that keep that term relevant. Those of us with analog only past beginnings know what I am talking about.

OK my comparison is as follows
Human Ears = analog
Human Brain = analog
Birds Chirping = analog
Cars, outside noise = analog
Rain, streams, wind = analog

OK back to audio systems
Speakers, wiring = analog
Turntable and related gear = analog
Even AC current is = analog

So a great DAC, well it has to have a digital to analog convertor, is that not what DAC means? Our Ears need it be converted to be able to decipher the tones and thus spoken words.

I for one do not want to wear a DAC on my head, but hell, maybe we send digital signals across the room to us to convert pure lossless.

Maybe that is the next step in audio purity?

I haven't been playing a 12 string Martin unplugged in your studio, honest.

Allan Gilmour

[Pampero]

Originally Posted by GaryProtein

I am very unclear about how you can compare the sound quality from any tuner with anything you can play from a digital or analog recording or high rez download in your system.

Radio stations do not have the best audiophile equipment. Their stuff is meant to run 24 hours a day, making it well built, but that doesn't translate to greatest fidelity of the recording. There is also the problem of taking their program material to the airwaves via control boards, compression and limiter circuits to keep their modulation within check, finally to the transmitter where the audio is converted to RF and sent through more RF amplifiers before it finally gets to the broadcast antenna.

What I have been dancing around and avoiding to say is there is no way any tuner, including the 108T among a few others in that class regardless of how good it may be can give you sound comparable to what you can play off a recording or file in your system directly. It probably sounds "very analog" because of the distortion, coloration and everything else in the audio chain in the radio station from their musical source, through their equipment and the "ether" down your antenna to your tuner.

Agreement.

The FM signal is also bandwidth limited, so no need to consider anything above 15K as significant to your reproduction. For most older people, and I include myself, that's very unlikely to be an issue in the real world, but it is worth mentioning given the extended bandwidth of good playback systems these days.. And then, there's the rest, including the fact that few radio stations indeed (today) use analog sources in any case. What you hear on the radio today is almost universally digital musical program , live broadcasts (possibly) excluded.

But who even transmits live music broadcasts anymore? If you're a fan of good analog, the radio is not a source. PBS is probably the best sounding broadcast network in many markets, all things considered.

I only have digital sources. Some sound better than others but at their best, it makes me so happy. We're Nashville Symphony subscribers so we get to hear real music properly produced every month. My system doesn't sound exactly like the Schermerhorn Center, even when I play recordings made there, but man, it sounds nice with a good recording. I think of it as sitting in a different place in the hall. My two cents.

I like not having to maintain analog equipment but the real reason I don't have a turntable is that I no longer have a record collection. If that changes, then I'll get a deck.

[Weirdcuba]

I invite you all over to listen to fm on any night of the week. Content may not be to your liking, but I have three and sometimes four stations spinning vinyl most days. It's not perfect, and perhaps it's the imperfection that is somehow charming, but i love it.

I agree FM is not nearly the technical source as good digital or good vinyl, but I could listen to good fm all night (and never have to think about what to play next). I also agree that 98% of the FM spectrum sucks from a SQ perspective, but I quite enjoy that other 2% and find it to be my current best representation of what I think analog should be.

I'm setting up a new turntable tomorrow and will give a full report soon. Not to the exclusion of digital or fm, but to continue to expand the musical horizons. As dan points out, it's all got to be analog when it hits your ears.

[Randy Myers]

And really, truly what is more important? If you enjoy it that is what matters.

I enjoy the sound of my McTuner sometimes, but the new DAC that I am trying ia by far the most "analog" sounding that my system has ever sounded. At least as good sounding as the best turntable I ever owned with no noise, no record cleaning... no hassles, just amazing music!

[doggiehowser]

What is analog sounding to me?

The ability to play loud without the digital glare or compression being oppressive to not just my ears, but my skin and my heart.



I find that this isn't always the case with some vinyl recordings either. But as a general rule, when I listen to a digital source that allows me to crank up the volume and the music doesn't seem to hit a wall and become difficult to take, I would consider that analog sounding.

I remember when I first started out, I used to consider analog sounds to be warmer and more romantic - because that was my only experience with my dad's old Thorens TD125LB with SME3012 arm.

Later when I began to listen to more modern decks - like a Scheu Analog, my first thoughts were - man! It sounds sooo clean like a CD but with the ability to play loud

[Pampero]

Originally Posted by Weirdcuba

I'm setting up a new turntable tomorrow and will give a full report soon. Not to the exclusion of digital or fm, but to continue to expand the musical horizons. As dan points out, it's all got to be analog when it hits your ears.

Love to take you up on your offer, and as we only do this for personal enjoyment, I echo Randy's sentiment.

That said, the notion that we get to enjoy pure analog today is fraught with breaks in the chain.

This unit or one much like it is at the end point of the audio feed to the transmitter in 99% of the radio stations broadcasting in the US these days. The other 1% haven't kept up.

Compression, limiting, multiple conversions and other such artifacts and tailoring are unavoidable except in the most esoteric program material, much of which isn't in broad distribution.

What we do at home to create warmth and depth is strictly after the fact. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that as all reproduced audio is a facsimile in any event, so we all get to select which poison we want. Smoothness with more noise and the potential for other less accurate artifacts or extended dynamic range and FR with subtle digital artifacts. It's my belief that tasteful, thoughtful mixing and mastering will have more effect on the quality of reproduction than a strictly analog/digital dichotomy.

Somebody mentioned the "loudness wars" which are still very much being waged in popular music today. We listened to some Sia last night. she's a very talented musician but somebody needs to clue in her engineers. The product was unlistenable except at low levels. It ends up sounding like just a bunch of noise. On vinyl, a record that squashed the dynamics and packed so much sound into a narrow range would sound just as bad.

You get a lot of that these days in pop music.

[Weirdcuba]

OK, I've spent all day with the new Clear Audio Innovation and I think it qualifies for analog in my book. Haven't listened to FM all day (but one of my favorite shows is on now, so . . . . ).

Can we agree it at least looks "analog"?




.
.
.
.
.

[Rick721]

The all new Marantz SA10