Clear me difference between digital and analogue sound

[Audio_Freek]

Dear, I think somehow you did escape Thad' post above regarding imaging. I am not talking of video imaging. I too have a basic stereo system with an little respectable TT and small-time LP collection. But my listening does not involve video. I mean virtual image of stage which I get to realize with pair of speakers, only with speakers.
If amplifier or any component in the chain alters that signal then that realization won't come as originality of audio is lost. I am not fan of MP3 though I have few CDs which I listen too.

I do agree, Stereo could be the last version for Music Lovers, Am die hard fan for Stereo set-up and Only Stereo can produce the best Hearing experience for Human(As we have Only two ears).

Digital is so clear and best for music and this only can be ultimate option. we still browse for S/W online to reduce the distortion like Huzzz,Ishhhhhhhhhhh,Buzzzzzzzz for 60t's,70t's even some 80ts collection too ,which were been recorded in Analog format.

This is for Thread Owner,


Analog is nothing but recording and reproducing the Sound waves which are created when atmosphere is disturbed as it is . I.e Its a RAW format of Sound without any coding or manipulation done

(For example:If you record a your fav track in a Mobile and play the same, you could hear or identify some sounds (Dog Barking Long distance, Your breathing sound etc)which you might have not noticed while singing,this is something to analog)


Digital is an awesome encoding done on Analog signal to make the music so clear and crisp where the Distortion never disturbs you feel towards Music and also make you hear the High Frequencies by boosting the same(The High frequencies would get dissolved in Analog due to its quality).

For Example:If you just take recorded sound(Mobile) and cut all the unwanted sounds or disturbing and replay the same, then u may feel" Oh god, Y shouldn't i try in a Rock Band)

Analog is a River Water-its really Pure but sometime it could have dust, some ppl would prefer nature water even though there is some issue with it.


Digital is Mineral water-Its been purified from River water,its good to have it without any hesitation

hyeah:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Digital is an awesome encoding done on Analog signal to make the music so clear and crisp...

Not really... Just like a tape machine, it records whatever is fed into it. If it is clear and crisp, so will the recording be, whether the medium is analogue or digital. Back in the day when our portable music was on cassettes, our first-generation LP copies, made on a decent deck, were actually pretty good.

Of course, if one went on to make second, third, generation tape copies, they quickly became unlistenable: this does not happen with digital, every copy of a copy of a copy of a copy is the same as the original. In fact, one of Ethan Winer's demos shows that even a budget sound card (he actually compares it against some high-budget studio stuff) can convert analogue-digital-analogue-digital-analogue an amazing number of times before the signal is noticeably degraded.

As to which will do higher frequencies, I suspect that the vinyl people may take issue with you on that! I'll leave it to them, I'm too tired for Google this evening! Anyway, even CD bandwidth exceeds human hearing.

I was reading a review on Stereophile last week. Unfortunately, I can't even remember what is was for, and I can't find it in my browser history --- but the author began with a digital v analogue preamble which was refreshing in its balanced point of view. It amounted to, "Given a choice, I'll buy the vinyl, but first and foremost it's the music I'm buying, and if it only comes on CD, that's fine by me."

 

[theredcommando]

This pretty much summarizes everything that was discussed. The main point being, good system exposes flaws, like wise CD is very clean and capable and hence exposes mastering, recording flaws. -

Vinyl vs CD

Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not : NPR

 

[omishra]

I think we drifted from subject "What is difference between digital (PWM) based v/s Analog (linear) Amplification" and moved to digital v/s analog media.

 

[manoj.p]

since we are talking about Stereo, I think it will be worthwhile if we throw some light on what stereo means.

Stereo is a greek word, literally meaning "solid body". Its a misconception that stereo means 2 channel. Stereo means giving body/dimension to anything, in this case the sound by adding more channels.

The stereo was introduced to movies in 1930's and was a three channel. Before that, movie theaters had only one mono channel, usually at the center of the screen. When the idea of adding dimension came, they added two smaller speakers, on left / right each. This was not called 3 channel or any other name, instead it was called "Stereo"

When the stereo implementation made it to home on LP's it was done on two channel. That was done purely because the LP could only do two channel. To achieve this, they stored the information on the edges of the grove. Each edge holds a channel, it became a two channel stereo.

Eventually movies expanded to 4 channel quadrophonic 'stereo' (yes, that's what it was still called). By 1950's, it was quite common to have 4 tracks at cinema, even some having 7. There was even a "Quad" home stereo format for home market in 1970's but failed to take off. The two channel was such a improvement over a mono channel, it took off in the home audio market. Over time people the stereo became synonym with 2 channel audio.

Just wanted to highlight history and present some facts. The two channels was not decided just because we all have two ears. If that's the case, we will only need to channels, that's all. The stereo is about creating a 3 dimensional effect, be it with audio or video. With audio, engineers are still trying to improve it by finding new ways to add more channels/encode & matrix into existing channels etc. The new Dolby Atmos is an example of this.

The purists may say only 2 channels is needed but that's not enough. Some may say because the CD/Audio tracks have two channels, so we should only use two speakers. Fair enough. But the recording engineers have ways to play with phases and encode additional channels by matrixing into existing two tracks. Not all the recording will have it that way, but those tools are available and there are lots of recordings that way. Moreover, by using a 3 channel stereo, you can get a dedicated, solid center image that could not be possible with 2 channel. This extends the sweet spot tremendously and you are not dependent on symmetrical room or any other room limitations. Just try listening to some 2 channel tracks with a 3 channel or more stereo. You would be surprised how a 5 speaker stereo system widens the sound-stage and makes it spacious.

Don't limit ourselves by the limitation of Audio format. Take full advantage of the possibilities

 

[anm]

2 channel setup is cheaper, simpler, less wire clutter, requires no wires running around except for sides of front wall, which makes it easier to have wires on floor, and people not tripping when moving around in the room.

 

[manoj.p]

anm,

There is no denying that. 2 channel setup is simpler, less wiring issues. Moreover, there are so many equipment choices available for it. Anything higher and you will have to go with AVR and different set of equipment. Is it perfect? No. Is it simple and still quite satisfying yes.

Purpose of my above post was never to undermine 2 channel stereo. It has its own place (and that too a huge one) in audio. The purpose was to show that stereo is not 2 channel audio and we should not limit ourselves to it under the pretext that its ultimate or because we have only two ears or you need only 2 channel audio music etc. 2 channel audio, no matter how popular it is, is still the first step to achieve 3 dimensional audio which is stereo. It can be made better by using more speakers + processing even with 2 channel sources, no doubt about it.

Just to give an example is if we go to 3 channel stereo from 2 channel. The processing like Dolby Prologic takes the common sound and sends it to center channel. Rest is still played through left and right respectively. Now, the common mostly is vocal and the instruments which are in both the channels. Because you place the center speaker where your center should be, you get a solid image right away. Moreover, this center image position is not so much dependent on your seating. Its still there where you want it to be. Now, because vocals and other major sound is coming from a speaker which is in the center of room, you have nullified all the room modes, reflections etc that you would have had with two channels. That's quite a major plus. Now you can get away with less than optimal speaker placement in the room, unsymmetrical left/right sides etc. Those can still affect, but not as much.

I was in the camp of pure mode for a long time. I would use only 2 channels for music, until one of my friend showed me how good the processing is. I gave it a try, adjusted some of the parameters with width, depth etc and never looked back. I would suggest keeping an open mind. Those who have AVR's, give it a try with Dolby PLII or other DTS multi-channel processing on 2 channel. It won't cost you anything. If you like it, do some extra tweaks. You might discover your music again. If you don't like it, you can always go back to old 2 channel. Its always about what we like and how we prefer it.

alright, enough with the long post already.

 

[Rajiv]

Hi,

This is an interesting blog.

TWOGOODEARS - ??????????: Yin & Yang Music System or Arjuna's Arrow and the Perfect Imperfection

Regards
Rajiv

 

[kaushik]

I still miss the sound from the philips 2 in one TAPE and played via TDA810 and local full ranger ..

things have become so complicated

 

[kanwar]

I have belcanto pre one and belcanto 200.2 power amp. Which is class d digital amplifier i suppose.

Class-D is NOT digital, its plain Analog amp having Pulse Width Modulation technique........as simple as that.

Kanwar

 

[keith_correa]

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.

Did you record from the LP to the CD and then compare? If not, it's a case of apples vs. oranges.

 

[hydra]

Did you record from the LP to the CD and then compare? If not, it's a case of apples vs. oranges.

I keep seeing this mentioned in the Digital vs. Analogue wars. Without meaning any offense, can I ask whether this exercise really matters?

I ask because the practical, on-the-ground objective of the Digital vs. Analogue comparison is about how good a commercially available CD of album XYZ sounds vs. how good a commercially available LP of album XYZ sounds.

To me, the essence of the answer to the Digital vs. Analogue question is this: Should I buy the CD, or should I buy the LP? Extending that thought bit further, another part of essence of the answer is this: Should I invest more in my digital rig, or in my analogue rig?

Isn't this what the Digital vs. Analogue question is about?

The LP vs. Recording from LP comparison comes into the picture only when we are making a technical analysis of the LP (and the analogue rig it's playing on) right? Then the question is: Does this LP sound better playing off this analogue rig, or does a digital recording of this LP, playing off a digital rig sound better?

 

[gobble]

I keep seeing this mentioned in the Digital vs. Analogue wars. Without meaning any offense, can I ask whether this exercise really matters?

I ask because the practical, on-the-ground objective of the Digital vs. Analogue comparison is about how good a commercially available CD of album XYZ sounds vs. how good a commercially available LP of album XYZ sounds.

To me, the essence of the answer to the Digital vs. Analogue question is this: Should I buy the CD, or should I buy the LP? Extending that thought bit further, another part of essence of the answer is this: Should I invest more in my digital rig, or in my analogue rig?

Isn't this what the Digital vs. Analogue question is about?

The LP vs. Recording from LP comparison comes into the picture only when we are making a technical analysis of the LP (and the analogue rig it's playing on) right? Then the question is: Does this LP sound better playing off this analogue rig, or does a digital recording of this LP, playing off a digital rig sound better?

Exactly my POV and I tried to clarify it a few posts before.

Thanks Hydra

-G0bble

 

[theredcommando]

@hydra
The problem is because people base this choice on so called scientific reasoning. The claim that vinyl sounds better than digital CD because digital cannot reproduce/capture analog signal and we can hear that difference, is the point of debate.

Its free speech after all. If somebody likes vinyl, thats fine. But if somebody likes vinyl, because its superior than digital(and he claims so) then that has to be questioned scientifically. If vinyl followers are ready to accept that vinyl might be inferior technically, but they like it better then nobody would debate.

The real question is about, is digital lesser capable than analog? or it is just the better mastering, lack of precision in vinyl that actually gives it upper hand?

If above experiment is done and found that digital sound similar to vinyl, then it can be easily concluded that vinyl adds its own color, which is more friendly and natural then sterile and precise sound of digital. And similar color should be added(or could be added) to digital to make it sound natural.

 

[keith_correa]

Check this podcast. More fuel to the fire

 

[vinyl]

+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.

That's the absolute truth. It is because of mastering difference and not due to analog vs digital formats. If mastering for digital is done like mastering for analog, then I am sure digital/cd format will sound much better as these formats will not have the problems of pops and clicks or any other noises that one hears from analog formats.