Ask an Audio geek

[AFTT47]

It's definitely nostalgia related.
Digital technology can emulate the "warm" sound of anything if needed to reproduce a particular sound.

No vinyl will pass a double blind test as superior since digital can match the quality.
Again, it's all about what they are trying to accomplish with their master.

I can respect that. As Alex said, nobody listens to music for logical reasons. As long as one doesn't try to make a case that vinyl records are in some way superior to digital audio, I'm good. Do that though and I'm going to call bullshit.

[IATIA]

The main difference between digital and analog is the harmonics and that is what gives vinyl it's appeal.

[ignoramus]

Every analogue medium is littered with distortion. Some sound OK, most do not.
Digital also has its share of "electronic" interference also.

What we need to ask ourselves is whether watching an orchestra perform live has that "warm" sound which you get from vinyl or valves.
I'd say not ... I'd say it's a tolerable/pleasing distortion specific to that medium.

Music is emotion but cold digital numbers don't lie. Analogue does. It lies through its teeth to get you in an emotionally vulnerable state!
Like a preacher at a funeral! hehehe

[Kosh]

It's definitely nostalgia related.
Digital technology can emulate the "warm" sound of anything if needed to reproduce a particular sound.

No vinyl will pass a double blind test as superior since digital can match the quality.
Again, it's all about what they are trying to accomplish with their master.

I can respect that. As Alex said, nobody listens to music for logical reasons. As long as one doesn't try to make a case that vinyl records are in some way superior to digital audio, I'm good. Do that though and I'm going to call bullshit.

Again, I'll reiterate that I like the sound of vinyl on my turntable.  One of my favorite albums is The Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication.  I own it on CD and I own it on vinyl.  I vastly prefer the sound of it on vinyl.  Another favorite album of mine is The Electric Light Orchestra - Out of the Blue.  I prefer the original CD release over the vinyl version.  I used to be a purist, and was concerned with reproducing music as the artist intended.  My feeling now is that is an impossible task.  Not only would you need to use similar equipment as what is in the studio, but people don't listen or hear the same.  My biggest revelation came after I started attending concerts, and noticed how much different music sounded live vs studio.  I'm now firmly in the camp where the most important factor when listening to music is "ME".  
 
I used to view tone controls as taboo.  Only a weak inferior system would include them.  Now I tweak like crazy.  Room correction, simulated 7.2 from a 2 channel source, and multiple subs are all in play.  A phono cartridge is the ultimate tone control.  

One last thing in regards to vinyl.  Most people will never know how good vinyl can sound.  Vinyl was something people had to deal with before digital came of age, and most people had pretty crappy turntables.  Like the guy listening to MP3's on his phone with cheap earphones.

[Alex K]

Most people will never know how good vinyl can sound. 

Yes, that. Most people vastly underestimate the potential of vinyl sound because they've never heard an excellent system. My total eye-opener was a demo by A Capella Audio Arts in Frankfurt, showcasing their Campanile flagships with Ion tweeters, with some live jazz recordings. They had a relatively powerful valve amp, but I forgot which turntable setup. Jebus Christ what a sound.



The transients of the percussion were so sharp they were able to cleanly separate the butter from your bread if you know what I mean.

[IATIA]

I'm sorry folks, but DIGITAL IS NOT AN EXACT RECORDING of the original. It is slices pieced together and part of what is missing, is the information between the slices.

Speakers are analog. Guitars are analog. Violins are analog. Percussion is analog. Horns and trumpets are analog. Sax, clarinet, bassoon, they are all analog. No matter how digital one thinks they may have gone, it all started off analog.

The biggest problem with digital (besides the lack of similar harmonics) is that it tends to 'clean up' the analog signal and it is not an exact copy of the original performance. Digital is close, but it cannot compare with analog on so many levels. The only real advantage to digital is the ability to replicate the original copy precisely.

Now, can one really tell the difference? If you are a boomer (car bouncing and rattling to overblown bass) of course not (and their ears are probably shot anyway). Got a cheap stereo in your house? No difference.

If you truly love music and have a high dollar system and good hearing, the difference is noticeable. My hearing is not as good as it used to be and I can tell the difference between an original CD and all those same songs crammed into a nano.

And I do not think reel-to-reel has even been mentioned. The problem with reel-to-reel of course, is the availability of recordings.

1. Reel-to-reel
2. Vinyl
3. CD
4. anything digitally compressed

[ignoramus]

Agree and disagree.
The inherent lack of freq response from analogue kills it for me.
Also, agree, it can sound stunning using stunning gear!

For the vast majority, digital is better by far.
There was issues in the early days of cd, some argued that 16 bits of resolution wasn't enough.
On normal reasonable quality hardware, digital will win.

The analogue argument, I believe is invalid. Sure, most instruments are analogue, but that certainly doesn't imply that you need an analogue medium to reproduce it best. How you record and store information should be as accurate as possible, hence digital. Again, it comes down to the master and mixing. It can sound dry and clinical. Blame the arrangers, mixers and producers, not the digital medium. That's like shooting the postman.

[Kosh]

Another real kicker is that digital systems can sound different from one another.  If you go with the assumption that digital is perfect reproduction of the source material, then the DAC should make no difference in the sound quality.   That is definitely not the case.

Most stand alone CD players have a coax digital output on them that bypasses the internal DAC.  Connect that to a coax digital input on your receiver, and then connect the L/R analog outputs on the CD player to the receiver.  You'll be able to do a direct A/B comparison between the CD player DAC and the Receiver DAC by switching inputs.  The differences are sometimes not so subtle.  That being said, I think the DAC market is mostly snake oil.  I've heard DACS in the five digit range that sound no different to me than DACS in many HT receivers (Yamaha Aventage, Marantz, Denon, Anthem, Rotel, etc).
 
The only time I would recommend buying a stand alone DAC is to connect a digital system to a 2-channel analog audio system.  For people using a decent brand HT receiver, I recommend using HDMI from the PC to the receiver.  Coax or optical digital works fine on older receivers without HDMI.  Set the PC playback software to bitstreaming, and your done.

[IATIA]

The analogue argument, I believe is invalid.

How so?

Sure, most instruments are analogue, but that certainly doesn't imply that you need an analogue medium to reproduce it best. How you record and store information should be as accurate as possible, hence digital.

"Reproduce it best" is probably somewhat subjective. To record an analog signal accurately does require analog recording. Digital can only approximate, but it is not "as accurate as possible". No matter the clock frequency of the digital recording equipment, one can only get a maximum (unachievable limit) of half of the signal. Probably it is closer to one quarter.

Now do not get me wrong, I am not dissing digital by any means. I have no vinyl at all. My CD collection is all crammed into iTunes through apple lossless compression and thrown into my ipod (160GB Classic) which goes everywhere with me. I could not do that with vinyl.

[Goosebump]

---

Can you answer anything I couldn't google myself and if so what would that be? Other-words: what questions would I not search for?

In all honesty.  I think the only thing that I can give you that google can't is my opinion.

Sorry I fucked that up. I was too general. I guess what I'm asking are what are some key things I might want to look for when purchasing speakers for say a PC?

Other then the basics of wattage out put, configuration, noise to signal ratio stuff.

Or shit, what set of sterio PC speakers would you recommend for 2.0 or 2.1 system?