Does analog move more air. . . ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To what end? what will we ultimately gain from this experiment? I still don't get it

The OP posed a question, something like 'does analog move more air?' For some, this question generated responses based on physics. For others, the question generated philosophical responses.

Philosophical responses are not counter arguments to responses based on physics, and vice versa, so we have endless pages of debate where there is no resolution possible . . . nor does there need to be.

In the pro-analog camp, it seems to me that the answers are mostly 'metaphysical'. The best of these might have even been yours, i.e. that analog has some kind of 'magical' properties. I can go along with that. For example, I think there is something 'magical' about steam locomotives that is not present in diesel or electric. I accept, though, that this 'magical' quality does not necessarily mean that steam power is more efficient or more effective than modern counterparts.

So we have a range of responses, mostly dwelling on two themes:

1 Analog is better because it sounds better

2 Analog is better because it is more accurate.

The first theme is fine by me. It's also non-contestable. "Sounding better" is subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and no-one can presume authority over what someone else prefers (or does not prefer). This, of course, means that the statement "digital is better because it sounds better" is as equally valid and non-contestable.

The second theme is contestable, because it is possible to develop experiments and measure the results. MSH has not bought into the debate of which sounds better, and has focussed on the physics. If the original question was intended to elicit a physical answer, MSH has taken the running on providing information to that end. From my perspective, VP is trying to mount a case that supports 2, but his responses seem to me to be mainly evasions or distortions.

Through all this, there are contributions from a variety of posters who believe 1, but believe that it is contestable and unchallengeable. This seems like a contradiction (and perhaps it is), but it's no different to, say, a religion saying "we know what's right, and if you differ, you are a heretic."

So what will we get from this?

An experiment may show that one or other format is more accurate than the other. But you are right . . . this will have no bearing on what format people prefer to listen to.
 
The OP posed a question, something like 'does analog move more air?' For some, this question generated responses based on physics. For others, the question generated philosophical responses.

Philosophical responses are not counter arguments to responses based on physics, and vice versa, so we have endless pages of debate where there is no resolution possible . . . nor does there need to be.

In the pro-analog camp, it seems to me that the answers are mostly 'metaphysical'. The best of these might have even been yours, i.e. that analog has some kind of 'magical' properties. I can go along with that. For example, I think there is something 'magical' about steam locomotives that is not present in diesel or electric. I accept, though, that this 'magical' quality does not necessarily mean that steam power is more efficient or more effective than modern counterparts.

So we have a range of responses, mostly dwelling on two themes:

1 Analog is better because it sounds better

2 Analog is better because it is more accurate.

The first theme is fine by me. It's also non-contestable. "Sounding better" is subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and no-one can presume authority over what someone else prefers (or does not prefer). This, of course, means that the statement "digital is better because it sounds better" is as equally valid and non-contestable.

The second theme is contestable, because it is possible to develop experiments and measure the results. MSH has not bought into the debate of which sounds better, and has focussed on the physics. If the original question was intended to elicit a physical answer, MSH has taken the running on providing information to that end. From my perspective, VP is trying to mount a case that supports 2, but his responses seem to me to be mainly evasions or distortions.

Through all this, there are contributions from a variety of posters who believe 1, but believe that it is contestable and unchallengeable. This seems like a contradiction (and perhaps it is), but it's no different to, say, a religion saying "we know what's right, and if you differ, you are a heretic."

So what will we get from this?

An experiment may show that one or other format is more accurate than the other. But you are right . . . this will have no bearing on what format people prefer to listen to.

My position here is this: I feel Analog sounds better, but I never specifically said why. I do however feel Digital leaves something out specifically in the high frequencies which seem to sound harsh and thin.

Here is what I said in post #2:

"Good question. but I think it is simple, Analog keeps the original signal as true as possible. Sure there is coloration and artifacts but it is still kept in its original infinite resolution state."

This was taken from post #307

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_signal
Quote taken from the above link "An analog signal has a theoretically infinite resolution""

VP
 
Last edited:
The OP posed a question, something like 'does analog move more air?' For some, this question generated responses based on physics. For others, the question generated philosophical responses.

Philosophical responses are not counter arguments to responses based on physics, and vice versa, so we have endless pages of debate where there is no resolution possible . . . nor does there need to be.

In the pro-analog camp, it seems to me that the answers are mostly 'metaphysical'. The best of these might have even been yours, i.e. that analog has some kind of 'magical' properties. I can go along with that. For example, I think there is something 'magical' about steam locomotives that is not present in diesel or electric. I accept, though, that this 'magical' quality does not necessarily mean that steam power is more efficient or more effective than modern counterparts.

So we have a range of responses, mostly dwelling on two themes:

1 Analog is better because it sounds better

2 Analog is better because it is more accurate.

The first theme is fine by me. It's also non-contestable. "Sounding better" is subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and no-one can presume authority over what someone else prefers (or does not prefer). This, of course, means that the statement "digital is better because it sounds better" is as equally valid and non-contestable.

The second theme is contestable, because it is possible to develop experiments and measure the results. MSH has not bought into the debate of which sounds better, and has focussed on the physics. If the original question was intended to elicit a physical answer, MSH has taken the running on providing information to that end. From my perspective, VP is trying to mount a case that supports 2, but his responses seem to me to be mainly evasions or distortions.

Through all this, there are contributions from a variety of posters who believe 1, but believe that it is contestable and unchallengeable. This seems like a contradiction (and perhaps it is), but it's no different to, say, a religion saying "we know what's right, and if you differ, you are a heretic."

So what will we get from this?

An experiment may show that one or other format is more accurate than the other. But you are right . . . this will have no bearing on what format people prefer to listen to.


This is a great response that sums it up well.

The only thing I would like to add is that I believe 'accurate' is also subjective. So I think we're chasing our own (or each others') tails.

I mean, I actually agree that digital is more accurate superficially. As in, when I transfer a master tape to CD, it sounds pretty much like the master tape. It just has that extra 'presence' or life-like quality missing from it ... and I have noticed some kind of weird plastic/robotic sound to things like hi-hats that I can't quite pinpoint. It's very subtle but worth mentioning.

When the master tape is transferred to vinyl, or another reel of tape, it sounds noticeably less like the original master, but somehow that presence is retained.

Any argument for accuracy could go either way. In fact, I myself could go either way on this. Pressing vinyl was actually a very difficult process for me ... to get the vinyl sounding good. With a CD, I just dub it from the master and it sounds good. The biggest difference for me as a recording artist is that I've received much more positive feedback from the vinyl release than my normal CD releases. I think people are engaging more in the music because of the ritual involved in listening ... they're paying more attention and it's more of an event. They are also more willing to buy a vinyl disc than pay for a CD or a download because it has a greater perceived value.

Sorry, I realize that was a tangent but somehow it seems relevant in light of how much has been said back & forth on this thread.
 
CD is a ritual now in the days of mp3 players. I don't mind changing CDs every hour, but flipping an LP every 20 minutes is annoying. That's probably why I haven't repaired my turntable in the last couple of years . . .
 
The only thing I would like to add is that I believe 'accurate' is also subjective. So I think we're chasing our own (or each others') tails.

Accuracy is subjective . . . to the extent that testing and measurement is deficient, and we make up for those deficiencies through extrapolation and interpretation. In those situations it is difficult to remove personal biases and influences . . . a bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. But that's ok. The scientific method never deals in absolutes, even with things that are widely regarded as fact. The key element of measurement is that it is always open to be challenged and to be disproved. We start chasing our tails when we try to measure things for which there are no readily available measures (e.g. the 'magical' quality of analog), and we enter into the realms of conjecture.

VP said this:
My position here is this: I feel Analog sounds better, but I never specifically said why. I do however feel Digital leaves something out specifically in the high frequencies which seem to sound harsh and thin.

Note that VP says he feels that analog sounds better, and that he feels digital leaves something out. This is good. I have no problems with people feeling these things . . . just so long as they don't offer up these feelings as proof. That's when tails get chased.

But it gets a bit tricky here:

" . . .Analog keeps the original signal as true as possible. Sure there is coloration and artifacts but it is still kept in its original infinite resolution state."

This quote cited by VP is difficult to untangle. "Analog keeps the original signal as true as possible" . . . well, yes. But so does digital. And so did wax cylinders. The crux is what degree of original accuracy is implied by "as possible". The quote acknowledges the presence of "coloration and artifacts", and these therefore describe some of the limitations inherent in "as possible". However, the implication is that these limitations are somehow mitigated by the recording being "kept in its original infinite resolution state". So all of a sudden we have lost the "theoretical" attached to "infinite resolution". This is the art of creating a fact by stealth, as is the implication that higher resolution is all that is needed to counteract coloration and artifacts.
 
I've just been skimming here, but what I think would be an interesting test is,

1. mic an acoustic guitar playing a couple chords and take a reading after the preamp before the signal goes to the recorders, but send that to both a digital and a tape recorder.

2. Then play back each, micing the speaker, with the same mic from the same distance and take a reading on that.

3. Do it all the same day because humidity levels change the air and the sound.

4. Compare the after preamp readings to the other two.

I think it would be interesting not to see which is better but just to see what is different. Then again it's probably been done and could be just as pointless. I don't really follow this stuff so excuse me if this standard.
 
But it gets a bit tricky here:

This quote cited by VP is difficult to untangle. "Analog keeps the original signal as true as possible" . . . well, yes. But so does digital.


Is Digital "as true as possible" if it goes through an A/D and D/A converter? This is why I look forward to my experiments recording various waveforms and frequencies and observe the output from my CD and DAT recorders on my Tektronix 2246.

VP
 
AtoDeficient..... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE...

Template%20you%20what%20you%20have%20done.jpg
 
Is Digital "as true as possible" if it goes through an A/D and D/A converter? This is why I look forward to my experiments recording various waveforms and frequencies and observe the output from my CD and DAT recorders on my Tektronix 2246.

VP

Go right ahead, and while that takes you another week, notice that I ran an 18/19kHz signal (this measures not only HF response but also undesirable distortion products like IMD and jitter) from the CD player on the Tascam CD-A500 out (analog of course, this unit doesn't have a digi out) to an entirely ordinary 2003-vintage soundcard and posted the result . . . oh, on page 2 of this thread . . . post #30 . . . so check your converters at some high frequency, or better yet, a pair of frequencies, or just shoot a square wave at 'em and compare input to output on the scope (dual trace?). Then do the same thing with one of your tape recorders.

It ain't rocket surgery . . .
 
Not an Analog signal, no way! Apparently you dont understand Electricity at all.
Analog signal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote taken from the above link "An analog signal has a theoretically infinite resolution"
VP

Actually, the clue should be in the word "analogue" (or "analog" for left-ponders) itself: "something that bears and analogy to something else".

And your analogue electrical signals are exactly that: an electrical representation of the original pressure oscillations in the trasmission medium (in our case, usually air). So, by the time you get your precious analogue recording, the sound has already gone through one conversion (the transducer in the microphone) and several processes (mic pre amp, bias amp in the recorder, etc).

Now this doesn't mean it can't sound good--but don't argue that your analogue signal hasn't been converted. The only original in the chain is the pressure waves in the air.

As for "an analogue signal has a theoretically infinite resolution", the key word is "theoretically". I could theoretically be a millionaire--but, in practical terms, I have $2.75 in my pocket just now.

(Oh, and that bad joke is analagous to the digital vs. analogue situation.)
 
AUD.

Hey, that's another good analogy. If it was USD2.75 and I converted to USD, the number is 2.60608. Now, this would normally round off to $2.61 but the smallest coin in Australia is 5 cents so that $2.61 gets rounded to $2.60.

However, it still buys me a bottle of cheap wine!

Now, THAT is a conversion!
 
I drink it out of the box these days . . . sorry Aussies, you have lost my business to the Chileans . . .

Actually I make my own blend, the grocery doesn't reliably stock the shiraz-merlot blend with the marsupial on the label (different brands, but I only drink marsupial, I like the hint of eucalyptus), so I mix a 1.5L bottle of shiraz with a 5L box of merlot and some toasted oak chips. Give it a couple of weeks for some oxidative polymerization and it ain't half bad for $0.60 a glass . . .
 
Another "boxer" here. I've discovered a very drinkable Traminer-Riesling blend (THISl one) which is $15.99 per 4 litre box ($14.99 if I buy four at a time--I buy four at a time) which is a nice light summer drink.

Once the weather cools down, I tend to move to a Shiraz or a Shiraz-Cabernet blend. Hmmm...must try doing my own mixes! (In more than the audio sense!).
 
I don't like the whole varietal trend; I think the French had it right in the first place. Blends rule!

Also trying slipping about 10% white into a red blend, that can be very nice.
 
@ Bobbsy:

De Bortoli is great! For an every day cask quaff, I don't think you can do much better. Which bottle shop does the $14.99 deal?

Paul
 
Dan Murphy...$15.99 per cask for singles, $14.99 if you buy four.

The only trouble is, it's rare I can make it out of the local branch without trying some of their open samples and buying something else.

(And I knew that, if we kept going, this thread would eventually get onto something useful!)

Edit: Just checked my Tuesday receipt and, in fact, the 4 price is $14.79. Gotta be the best deal around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top