Clear me difference between digital and analogue sound

[CLEARCUT]

There is vast discussion going on in the net about the difference between digital and analogue sound. I have belcanto pre one and belcanto 200.2 power amp. Which is class d digital amplifier i suppose. I have other amplifiers in class ab. Using them i am at a loss for a word to describe the differencee. But while using belcanto i feel utter silence. That there is no back ground noise. Instruments are sharp and decay fast. In analogue i feel little back ground noise and some kind of edgy feeling in every music. So i could not express what is the difference in it. I would be thank ful if audiophile friends could explain the difference what are the pros and cons of the above two. In tube and solid state i am sure ss has more dynamism. Extended highs and lows but muddy mids. But in the case of tube ( i have used ayon orion) not too high end. I felt extraordinary mids but missed fine highs and extended lows. But the difference between the analogue and the digital i am struggling to express my feeling pl help me thanks.

 

[gobble]

Digital is a compromise. Period. Recently I took my Shigaraki DAC to Santhosh's house and we did an A/B with his Turntable using an LP of the famous album Louis & Ella and a a CD version of a track in it. Only very briefly in the track I wondered if there was a difference (due to the stellar virtues of the DAC), while in other parts it was clear that information was absent in the CD version. It would be unfair to describe the deficiency in terms "poor sounding" because the Shigaraki is a world class DAC and it does show its capabilities if the source material is mastered at the highest quality. In this case it was apparent that the digital transfer from analog had robbed the source signal of its fidelity and the inference that the source signal has been robbed of crucial bits of information is a more accurate way of describing it without anyone mis-interpretating it as a lack of virtues in the DAC. The result for the picky audiophile and a TT owner would certainly be dissatisfaction whenever the opportunity for an A/B comparison exists.

Perhaps 24bit HD recordings would overcome this deficiency. but I never heard an HD recording. If you ask me I would say spending $$$ on a DAC is only worthwhile if you are going to have a transport capable of 24bit playback or for 16/44 playback when you have strong preference for Indian classical music and wish to appreciate the music for its ability to touch the "other" dimension within (spiritual) without being distracted by the imperfections in SQ like a lack of cohesion, or approaching the music for its sound and dissecting and listening to the sound itself.

--G0bble

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Which is class d digital amplifier i suppose.

What does it mean? Not that I know much about amplifier classes anyway, but (as so often happens when visiting hifivision) your post set me off surfing about your amplifier. After reading an interesting rave review, I moved on to Bel Canto's own site, and noticed this quote:

Class-D Demystified

Class-D is commonly misunderstood to signify a Digital amplifier. It's actually just the 4th letter of amplifier types: Class -A, -AB and -C. What it really means is the fastest, simplest and most efficient way to convert electrical power into music.

Digital is a compromise. Period. Recently I took my Shigaraki DAC ...

But here we are talking about an amplifier technology, not, apparently, the old vinyl v digital controversy which will never end until both are long-outdated technologies.

(But hey,

we did an A/B with his Turntable using an LP of the famous album Louis & Ella and a a CD version of a track in it.

I think that LP vs CD can be a very unfair test. The true test is to digitise the LP yourself, and then compare analogue and digital. This way, you are listening to the same information, rather than depending on the record company for that. Otherwise, differences that you hear are just as likely to be down to the record company as the technology, and I don't know that there is any way of being sure of that.

BTW... if the CD and LP were, indeed, that close, rather than blatantly obvious remix/remaster, I hope you were doing blind testing! )

 

[avidyarthy]

In a layman's language .......

While playing on ... HMV turntable > phono > Norge 1000 > Sony FS speakers. This is pure analogue ... SQ is luscious, very involving, excellent bass, big soundstage. It is, as if one is sitting 'within' the performance and not giving a hear from a distance. I would use the words .. more realism / realistic.

For Digital,
DVDp > Norge 1000 > Sony FS speakers
CDp > Krell Amp > TL speakers
SBT > Topping T amp > JBL BS speakers

Though, for each of the above SQ is very very different ... but even then,
SQ is not that luscious or that involving
Bass is good to excellent
Soundstage is big enough
Separation is better than analogue
However, there is a factor of 'cut & dry' signature as compared to analogue, and obviously a feel that one is a part of the audience.

I may be mistaken for a few of the above observations though. Comments welcome.

 

[thatguy]

There is vast discussion going on in the net about the difference between digital and analogue sound. I have belcanto pre one and belcanto 200.2 power amp. Which is class d digital amplifier i suppose. I have other amplifiers in class ab. Using them i am at a loss for a word to describe the differencee. But while using belcanto i feel utter silence. That there is no back ground noise. Instruments are sharp and decay fast. In analogue i feel little back ground noise and some kind of edgy feeling in every music. So i could not express what is the difference in it. I would be thank ful if audiophile friends could explain the difference what are the pros and cons of the above two. In tube and solid state i am sure ss has more dynamism. Extended highs and lows but muddy mids. But in the case of tube ( i have used ayon orion) not too high end. I felt extraordinary mids but missed fine highs and extended lows. But the difference between the analogue and the digital i am struggling to express my feeling pl help me thanks.

Drawing sweeping conclusions about any technology is a bad idea. Implementations matter. Things change and what is true today may not hold tomorrow. Here is one interesting example where the head of the Philips class D amp design group writes off 'digital to the end' amplifiers.

The Truth About Digital (Class D) Amplifiers — Reviews and News from Audioholics

Six years later NAD releases M2, a digital to the end amp, which goes straight to class A of Stereophile recommended integrated amps.

 

[theredcommando]

Question is not very clear to me.

You are doing two comparisons -
1. Class D amp with Class AB amp
2. tube amp with solid state amp

1. Class D amp vs Class AB amp
D amps are switching and more efficient. AB is lesser efficient and does not use switching, which means in purist terms its closer to analogue or rather D is closer to electronics and AB is closer to electrical. Note that both are analog power amplifier designs.
Digital amp would be connected before DAC if its truly digital.

2. tube amp vs solid state amp
Here tube amp is more closer to electrical and solid state is electronics. Both have its pros and cons.
In general electrical systems have higher current/voltage/power and hence are more expensive and have high noise/unwanted attributes. Electronic systems have lower current/power and hence are cheap and have low noise and precise.

Analog vs digital is a completely different and apparently never ending debate. Just note that, in almost all practical applications vacuum tubes have been replaced with transistors long way back(in digital domain).
Sound is analog and speaker is also analog, hence theoretically analog processing chain is ideal. However, if is sound converted to digital then there is noticeable/hearable difference when its played by speaker, is something which is highly debated and difficult to prove.

For any comparison and conclusions ABX blind testing is must IMO.

 

[sound1]

I think that LP vs CD can be a very unfair test. The true test is to digitise the LP yourself, and then compare analogue and digital. This way, you are listening to the same information, rather than depending on the record company for that.

+1

I had a chance to compare couple of Tool albums with 24/192 vinyl rips and 16/44.1 CD rips (FLAC) in my friend's house. The difference is night and day.
Vinyl rips sounded very laidback and mellow where as the CD sounded very forward. I am convinced that it is because of mastering difference and not due to analog vs digital formats.

 

[jk_chaos]

Well if you really want to figure out the difference between digital and analog, get some albums pre 90s, and do an A/B comparison. Those days the tracks were recorded on tapes and the mastering done was analog while now every one has moved to recording interfaces like Cubase, Nuendo and Ableton, and if even if we buy a vinyl it is something that has been pressed from a digital recording, or atleast 90% of the case stays the same. Recording on analog required immense talent, and tedious retakes, while the digital era has simplified the whole process forcing artists to take the digital route.
There is a unique way in which the analog recordings connect with us and no matter what sort of digital recording steps in, it wouldn't even come close!! Period!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Multi-tracking was done on tape, too, with retakes and mixing, and effects and all. It's not as if every pre-digital recording was a perfect take in front of a stereo-pair microphone setup. You don't think digital recording takes talent? It takes great technical and artistic skill. Musicians still have to be musicians, too: it doesn't change the way that instruments are played.

There were different skills. It has always amazed me that anyone could splice audio tape accurately --- yet, of course, this was a basic skill of the analogue studio. There are "live" rock tracks from those days where different parts were mixed and matched from different performances. Yes, that is easier in digital, to the point where you or I could have a go at it, and the amateur effort might be far from unnoticable, but it would be far from the mess that I know I would make splicing tape. In fact, when I have tried that, I couldn't even make physically neat joins, let alone audibly neat ones!

Most of what is wrong with commercial recordings of any media is compression, loudness, all that stuff, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is analogue or digital, but, beginning with the demands of radio stations, and, I guess, moving on to the demands of MP3 kids, has become the norm of the business.

So, I suggest you take your "Period!" and ... reconsider it? :lol:

Unfortunately, the real vinyl fans with the best turntables, cartridges and phono amps, probably don't do much digitising because, for obvious reasons (which I completely accept) they do not want to listen to digital copies of their LPs. The more people with good analogue equipment add good sound cardss to their rigs, then, always assuming prejudice can be put aside, the more we would hear the truth about vinyl/digital comparison, not about comparison of vinyl and CD, and the more people would post like sound1

I had a chance to compare couple of Tool albums with 24/192 vinyl rips and 16/44.1 CD rips (FLAC) in my friend's house. The difference is night and day.
Vinyl rips sounded very laidback and mellow where as the CD sounded very forward. I am convinced that it is because of mastering difference and not due to analog vs digital formats.

Playing vinyl as an experience is different. As an ex-smoker (20 years now) I might compare making an smoking a hand-rolled cigarette compared to one from a packet. The aesthetic of vinyl, the LP, the gramophone record, its sleeve, the turntable... all different. It's comparable, maybe, to the way in which I would much prefer to read a book than watch a movie.

Clearcut, thanks for making me more aware of Bel Canto. It seems to be a very desirable range of amplifiers with a very high performance-for-price ratio. Very interesting indeed.

 

[jk_chaos]

I would beg to differ Thad!! Well I know people with no sense of playing a guitar sample up guitar solos and release em using the latest softwares, and these tracks have become big hits and they wouldnt dream about playing those live!! I am not saying everyone who records digitally doesnt have talent, top notch musicians will always remain the same, but I personally have seen singers not even able to sing a full line and finish the verse word by word, and mix em together. Being a part of a band myself, and owning an entry level set up in both vinyl and cd, atleast for rock music, the way vinyl reproduces the pre 90s guitar solos and drums, the cds are no where near them.. the dynamics, the vibratos it just transforms so much..

 

[magma]

hi
as you know all the sound you hear is analogue
digital sound cannot be heard

you can only have a digital source or a classD amp which i think you are referring to a digital amp
Today there are also digital preamps - whrein the analogue volume pot/attenuater is replaced by a digital volume control

By saying that "digital" sources amps etc sound a particular way ( i.e forward detailed etc) as opposed to tubey mello laid back sound of SS class AB amps or tubes is a generalisation in my opinion

there are world class class D amps that sound superb when partnered properly

I have always repeated - music is a flavour
some like it hot,spicy etc etc
you cook a dish and add spicies as you deem fit
setting up your music sytem is just like that
You can offset one property or flavour with another, accentuate something or suppress something - still getting the best out of the ingrdient

i had for a while a class D amp paired with a a NAD cdp
i loved it
class D amps have come a long way
todays classD amps come packed with power and well executed ones are really robust and reliable ( more than the class ABs today)

As for sources
digital / analogue
well thats an age old debate
and anyone who authoritatively states that one is better than the other is well ... not a foodie....
i have seen numerous setups due to my work - and what i say about music being food will always hold true

 

[theredcommando]

Adding something to digital vs analog debate.

Digital means discrete. But 16 bit audio sample at CD quality can represent 65536 states. Human ear can not distinguish between so many levels at any particular frequency easily. +-3db is usually considered as acceptable performance for speaker. Dynamic range of human ear is huge(140db) but it does not have it at the same time hence 96db dynamic range of CD quality audio(16bit sample) is considered to be good enough.
As for the required sampling frequency, 44.4kHz can represent max hearing threshold frequency of 20khz and minimum of 20Hz correctly. Hence technically, digital can compete analog recording.

In my opinion vinyl might be giving some noise hence the soothing feeling you get after hearing to it, instead of sterile sound of CD.

Now there might be very subtle queues that you feel(rather than hear) which might be absent in digital recording because its extremely exact and people may not like that.

Though I like the analogy with the food, I would still say that its more applicable to genre of sound. Rock or RnB, House or Country, this is like food. There is no good or bad, everybody has different taste just like food.
But out of digital and analog, one would be superior than the other. You may not feel that, but majority would agree about one.
For 95% population both are equally good(at CD quality). For some from rest 5%, analog might still be better even though it has inherent limitations and because it has some desirable properties like liveliness etc. And others would swear by digital as its technically more correct and accurate.
But in such a case, digital can always approach analog(by adding noise,adding properties/aberrations akin to analog) but reverse can never be done and true.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

magma and theredcommando, all excellent points.

Something I wonder... we can not hear digital data, but can we hear electricity? rising and falling voltages seem more akin to rising and falling air pressure --- but is that because we think we understand electricity better than digital data? If we had a rod connecting microphone to speaker, we would have a true analogue linkage. We feel that electrical pulses of different levels are perfectly analogous ...but are they?

Any thoughts on that, please contribute!

... the way vinyl reproduces the pre 90s guitar solos and drums, the cds are no where near them.. the dynamics, the vibratos it just transforms so much..

So digitise some of your favourite vinyl, with all care and attention (from what you say, you probably have the equipment to do that. Then, come back and say the digital is nowhere near the vinyl, because I'm confident that, if you do this test fairly, it will be.

You are not comparing like with like, so your arguments are not really valid ones. You can say, this digital is bad; Thad can sing only with the help of software tuning ; that vinyl is good and so on and so on, but you are not comparing like with like.

You must have a decent sound card there: try it! No-one is going to force you to listen to digital music, but please be fair to it, and do not run down the technology with false logic.

BTW, most of my non-Indian music is late 60s and 70s. Where I have CDs, they are at least as good as the vinyl, where I have digitised vinyl, then at least I have frozen the inevitable damage and increasing background noise, and the digitisation is just as good. Unlike the music industry, though, I am not compressing it (in dynamic range terms) and selling it as MP3s to kids to listen to on cheap headphones.

My experience of Western Classical as digital is much less. I have few CDs and some ill-gotten FLACs. With some of it, there is certainly that something missing sense that I first heard on digitally-mastered vinyl. The rest, though, is full-blown orchestral dynamic range in delightful detail.

 

[jk_chaos]

Thad ! my friend, I havent bashed the digital format here, I'm just saying Vinyl has done more justice to songs that i listen to, the pre 90s rock and heavy metal. Will surely convert a vinyl or two into the digital format and get back to you with how it felt!
Let me ask you something, let us take a simple musical instrument, the drums.. There are so many electronic drumkits available which can reproduce drum tones from entry level Mapex kits to high end DW kits. People still prefer buying the good old drum kit with the big toms and kick drum, they do know its loud and takes up a lot of space and difficult to manage. The answer is simple, no matter how advanced the digital kit is it just cannot reproduce the sound a live drum creates, there are certain things that just cannot be digitized.
Same are the thoughts I have for vinyl, there is a specific warmth in the tonality of the sound, atleast in the 40 odd vinyls I listened to, and I do have the digital versions of most of them and I would always prefer the pops and crackles from the vinyl to the digital music anyday..

 

[jls001]

Something I wonder... we can not hear digital data, but can we hear electricity?

How to hear electricity?

So digitise some of your favourite vinyl, with all care and attention (from what you say, you probably have the equipment to do that. Then, come back and say the digital is nowhere near the vinyl, because I'm confident that, if you do this test fairly, it will be.

I am not sure what grade of equipments are used to get the CD versions of albums from their analog master tapes (assuming we are talking about pre-digital, purely analog days). But I like to think that they would be professional, studio-grade devices, with further processing done by professionals. Many people are not happy with the resultant CD that come out from these devices, processes and the human skill that enables it. So digitising one's vinyls in one's home using non-pro devices, and doing an A/B with a professionally made CD, is not fair and puts too much onus on one's limited skills and limited equipment. The whole advice is valid if one has a high standard rig at home that will do as good a job as a professional rig. And the do-er knows what he is doing.


My thinking on the subject is if a person likes one thing over another, let it be.

PS: I am still not clear what Clearcut is trying to understand. Is it difference between analog and digital amplification? Or is it analog music format versus digital music format? Or what??

 

[CLEARCUT]

It is a good question jls. Because my source is digital (cdp) not analogue like TT.
Digital is converted into analogue and the amplifier I am using is both analogue that is class AB. and digital. So the whole chain is not perfect analogue or digital. Here I want to identify some difference between the digital amplification and ss (analogue ) amplification. Thats all. Everything is becoming digital nowadays. It is impossible to maintain. out of curiosity I started this thread but I am learning much from this and clearing my doubt. Its your clear cut

 

[jls001]

Here I want to identify some difference between the digital amplification and ss (analogue ) amplification. Thats all.

OK, understood.

The sound of an amplifier really depends on its implementation. For example, well designed and implemented tube and solid state amplfiers don't sound very different, though either have their respective strengths and weaknesses. In the end, it is all about personal preference of the listener.

Early Class D amplifiers had a reputation of sounding bad, but that is certainly no longer true. If reputed manufacturers like Bel Canto and Audio Research dare to venture into making Class D amps, then it means the technology has matured enough for them to stake their reputations on this energy efficient design.

Also, my (very limited) understanding is that Class D is not digital. Please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong.

 

[gobble]

(But hey,

I think that LP vs CD can be a very unfair test. The true test is to digitise the LP yourself, and then compare analogue and digital. This way, you are listening to the same information, rather than depending on the record company for that. Otherwise, differences that you hear are just as likely to be down to the record company as the technology, and I don't know that there is any way of being sure of that.

BTW... if the CD and LP were, indeed, that close, rather than blatantly obvious remix/remaster, I hope you were doing blind testing! )

Well I didn't have an audiophile nit-pickers approach in mind when I said that, rather one of a consumer of music CD's who just wants to go about living life enjoying the substance of the music on a day to day basis, and not get neurotic about the gear or source material. How many of us have the luxury of having access to the original analog source material and how many LPs can you purchase week after week and how many hours would a normal person wish to spend ripping the analog tracks into digital format with an ultra fanatical approach? My real point was that in the normal run of things, the digital consumer will suffer from inferior SQ, because the market does not offer anything resembling the vintage analog quality of recordings.

--G

 

[omishra]

Question here is which audio amplification method is better? Linear (call Analog e.g. class A, AB, B, H) or switched (call digital? - class D, T) ?

To answer this, understand what you expect ideally and what you get practically.

Ideally - if I apply input, I should get similar output and no by product along with that. No change in input except amplification of power in terms of voltage and current capability to drive speakers.

Practically -Each amplifier is oscillator itself. Hence you get harmonics at n'th position of applied input frequency. Also some part in signal chain offer different response to audio, but that's out of scope of current discussion. You hear changes in output and you call it coloration.

In case of switched amplification input gets converted to switching pattern and information is now in form of on & off pattern. That is sequence of on & off with variable duration in accordance with input. Now you need amplification of this. So just boost its upper and lower levels. This is done with output driver, (external MOSFETs or internal to chip, if any). Information remains same but level modified. Though information is same, that on-off pattern is not the same I am expecting. Again convert it to analog wave using some filter (LC in most cases). Here to get some changes D-A and that LC filter adds some byproduct in terms of added harmonics, there are less, but constant. Also switching pattern's presence can not be eliminated. So HF are different. Here you may loose information due to double conversions - analog -> switching pattern -> analog. In the output, you have added byproducts from this type of amplifier.

BTW in linear amplifiers you get amplification by controlling power into speakers which behaves as per input signal. Here you have feedback to control output wrt input and this introduces some oscillations/harmonics. Also compared with switched amplifier, variations to output are slower but sufficient for audio. Here high power handling is done in raw, inefficient format - linear wave which may be dependent on response of device. Hence you get different type of sound with different byproduct.

BTW most of the class D, T amps have input stage as OPAMP which is linear analog amp. So that class AB like changes already taken place. Only thing you avoid is hi power handling by more efficient way - on/off, nothing else.

Summary: Linear amplification are time tested but better implementation are costly and complex. Digital? amplification are cheap, better power handling of LF and final outcome is implementation dependent. By controlling switching patterns, you can amplify efficiently but trust on your ears to say you like or dislike. Both are different and sometime outcome cannot be distinguished.

Nobody likes coffee at first time. I am hinting toward adaptation of new technology in better way though my heart is still with old.

 

[sound1]

Nobody likes beer at first time. I am hinting toward adaptation of new technology in better way though my heart is still with old.

FTFY hyeah: