Why analog not digital?

Why were the hifi kakis prefer analog than digital hifi? In some area, the digital sounds outstanding , i guest.

What analog systems have u heard before ?

can be more specific bro?

tt vs cdp? or

tube/ss vs ICs(eg DSPs)?

hmm... maybe vintage sansui vs t-amps?

or the organic/fluid vs the super-accurate no-msg ?

its gotta be one of these questions. ok, i'm tired of guessing now.

i like the noise and the old skool look (even still have the new high end analog turntable selling now) from the analog turntable .. and i like the DJ playing the digital turntable also .. spinning and jamming the disc .. depend on how you look into the audio world .. happy hearing ..

I mean the amplifier la... or all together amp, cdp and speakers... why choose analog one?

Hi Bro, Analong make music real live and natural, warmth of full bodied, not to bright or bassy. When guitar plucking in lively, drum slam in control, like play music in your front face. By the way analog make more pleasant to hear than digital..when you HI-Fi you will become HI-Analong.. correct me if im wrong.

Amir wrote:I mean the amplifier la... or all together amp, cdp and speakers... why choose analog one?

Isn't the analogue part referring to the source only?

I don't get it. Can I tumpang and learn a little with some questions?

From the amp > speakers, isn't it already analog through the speaker cables even for XLR?

CDs are digital correct?

What about those cassette tape we listened back then?

LP = analog? how does the cartridge pickup the signal?

Solid state amp in this case, does it categorized either as digital or analog? Can you amplify 1001010100?

If my questions are irrelevant, I would gladly remove them. Perhaps can guide me to some useful links to read up.

for musik its analog i prefer, for movies its digital

Link to this site about Digital to Analog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter

actually it do not have the guideline .. all depend on each individual requirements..
if you study more .. analog facing a problem .. singal loss .. The signal loss do not happen in the digital .. in the musical recording , they converted the analog sound from the singer to digital then read thru u CD player then to amplifier lastly it will be converted to analog again at the point of amplifier speakers output ,,

I'd never heard of any full analogue set up before..
Really so nice huh??

frankly, i am trying very hard to make some sense of this thread.

forumers seem to be confused as to what is digital and what is analogue.

ok, i will try to sort out these issues:

ANALOGUE SYSTEMS
1) turntable spinning LPs (aka records) connected to phono preamp to normal integrated amp or pre/power amp (the amps can be solid state or tubes) to speakers. that's what your parents listened to and that's what mature audiophiles listen to.

2) the old cassette deck playing the obsolete cassette connected to integrated amp or pre/power amp (the amps can be solid state or tubes) connected to speakers.

3) tuner or the ancient reel-to-reel tape recorder connected to amp(solid state or tubes) and speakers.

DIGITAL SYSTEMS:
1) CD player connected to amp (solid state or tubes) to speakers.

2) CD/SACD player connected to amp (solid state or tubes) to speakers.

3) CD transport connected to DAC to amp (solid state or tubes) to speakers.

4) laptop with music files (MP3, FLAC, WAV, AIFF, etc) connected to USB or fire wire input in DAC to amp (solid state or tubes) to speakers.

5) laptop linked to Internet streaming music files to DAC via USB or fire wire connected to amp (solid state or tubes) to speakers.


Class D amps or so-called 'digital' amps are another story altogether.

last month, history channel (if i not mistake) show a journey of vinyl,
a factory in u.s produce from million of vinyl per month in 70's and reduce to only ten of thousand in 90's and now picking up to hundreds of thousand vinyl per month now.
its look like people are return to analog back

I hope hifi hobbies will make a huge come back in this decade. HT and karoeke seems to be 'over rules' the hifis ...

L.M.A.O.

G.M.B.A

Casio G-Shock = Digital

Audemars Piguet = Analog

gulp...

yamseng mugenfoo... tomolo saturday nite...

It always start and end with analogue - the singer's voice, the drums, guitars, violins etc (except keyboard synthesizers or digital instruments) are all analogue in nature (continuous unbroken variables) to begin with, and all these signals ended up driving the speakers which are analogue too, irrespective of whether the signals are being digitized along the way. When it all started (now too) the musical instruments are heard direct from source (i.e. no speakers at all) that's why we have tens if not over a hundred musicians on stage to give sufficient volume and many singers (choir). Then amplifiers and speakers come along and one singer can fill the hall without having to raise the voice.

Recording in those days have always been analogue - from master tapes to vinyl LP to cassette and etc and all these formats suffer some deficiencies and worse of all not very user friendly - bulky, difficult to manufacture and expensive (in cost). With the advent of digital, all these formats naturally declined or became obsoleted.

Now, for digital it means we have to first "convert" from analogue and then convert back to analogue - as with any "processing" it is not without flaws. In layman terms, digitization involves taking samples of the signal at a constant rate and giving each sample a "number". This sampling rate common to us range from the 44.1kHz (44,100 samples per second) to 192kHz. Next we have the "resolution" for CD it is "16bit" meaning (2^16) 65,536 distinct "steps" or it simply mean the system can assign one of those steps to correspond to the level of the analogue signal. It cannot be "in-between" the steps. In 24bit resolution there are over 16 million steps. Of course one would say 24bit/192kHz is better than 16bit/44.1kHz but then there is a price to pay - memory. A typical song at 16bit/44.1kHz already uses 30MB to 50MB memory. Then compression technology come in - MP3 etc bring it down to between 3 to 5MB but then this processing degrades the sound audibly and is not considered hifi. So, it is all a compromise. The conversion back from digital to analogue is even trickier and introduces other issues which is too long to discuss here.

When talking digital we mostly refer to the 'source' like CD, MP3, ipod, etc but the yet to be common "Digital amps" are a different piece of cake and they are normally fronted with analogue preamp driving high speed "switches" on and off with varying durations(milliseconds) according to the input signal levels. This is the "in" thing now the main selling point being high efficiencies (and therefore green) and compact and light as opposed to power wasters regular amps not to mention class A amps or tube amps.

In future digital will surely dominate simply because the mainstream will adopt it for its user friendly features and high efficiencies and with processing speed in the Giga Hz territory it will reach a point where sound is tailored to suit the listener/room. It will happen because people like it. But down the road, there will still be purists around, lugging heavy, cumbersome, power hungry full analogue systems like in the good o' days. Sorry to be so long winded, I'm sure most already know all these, just my 2 sens for those who are not so clear. For me, I like both digital & analogue and best of all 'open reel' if u know what i mean - it has the analogue sound of TT but better freq extension and quiet as CD. TQ

analog = can enjoy the sound long hours
digital = best!!! but only short period after that....hehhee

As far as I know, analogue will sound more natural as there is no electronic device that will alter the sound before reaching our ears. However a cdp will have to go through DAC before the signal is sent to the amplifier section. So the sound of the CD will depend entirely on the DAC itself. This is entirely different from TT as the signal from it is just being amplified in the phono section only. Correct me if I am wrong. That is what I understand for so long.

balokboy wrote:As far as I know, analogue will sound more natural as there is no electronic device that will alter the sound before reaching our ears. However a cdp will have to go through DAC before the signal is sent to the amplifier section. So the sound of the CD will depend entirely on the DAC itself. This is entirely different from TT as the signal from it is just being amplified in the phono section only. Correct me if I am wrong. That is what I understand for so long.

Hellooo... ever heard of such a thing called "RIAA Curve" ? <- this one needs electronics.

Amplifying the signal also needs electronics...

In fact, Hi-fi is ALL about Electronics and how it "alters" the sound here and there!

Many don't understand the recording process, starting with the microphone and recording room, down to the cables, recording console, signal processors like gates, compressors, EG and such. The aim of both digital and analogue is to capture as faithfully as possible, the original performance.

Analogue is a continuous "capture" of the signal chain, digital is a sampled capture. From what I've understood. You may also be surprised at the amount of digital treatment the sound on your LP may have gone through before transcription.

You know why recording engineers love the digital system, even if most of them will, in private, admit to preferring tape? Because it's so easy to work with something that's broken down to bits and bytes, and can be view, edited and manipulated on a computer.

So, analogue or digital, don't get your pants into a knot. Just worry about matching your system and getting your room environment right or close to ... that's what I've been doing the past year.

Yeah,i do have some friends saying cd-63 se produce more analogue sound compare to other in its class,dont know how do they actually measure it!!sometimes they also said that vintage amp such as sansui au-9500 produce analogue sound compare to modern days which is more ic based.

Agree with most of you that at the very start and in the end over the speakers, its all in analogue domain. Digital was merely an intermediary for convenience.

There are many questions like this in hifi (and life) because there are many ways to achieve the same thing:

1. Source: analogue or digital
2. Digital source: laser pick-up/CD or hard disk files
3. DAC: solid state output stage or tube output stage
4. Solid state output stage: IC or discrete
5. DAC: oversampling or non oversampling
6. DAC: filter or no filter
7. Pre amp: resistor pot or transformer pot or light dependent resistor
pot or variable gain stage





8. cartridge: MC or MM


9. power amp: no feedback or feedback
10. power amp: class a or class ab or class b or class t
11. tube amp: single ended triode or push pull; transformer coupled or OTL

12. single ended triode: direct heated or non direct heated
13. power amp: tube or solid state or hybrid



14. signal coupling: capacitor or transformer


15. loudspeaker: dynamic or planar magnetic or ribbon or horn or hybrid



16. loudspeaker: full range or multi driver


17. bass enclosure: sealed or ported or transmission line
18. crossover: active or passive
19. crossover: 6dB/oct 1st order or 12dB/oct 2nd octave or 3rd order etc



20. cables: solid core or multi strand or litz or flat


21. material: copper or silver


22. room treatment: absorption or diffusion


...


The list goes on. But the trick is to navigate through all the options and find one which works for you, your budget, your room, your musical taste, and most importantly, your wife's approval!



Note that there are tried and tested combo's which work well due to the inherent nature of each decision. For example, people who like what planar magnetics do well, will not be a fan of 5W single ended triode. And people who indulge in single figure watt tend to favour horn speakers for their high sensitivity, or full range, or open baffle speakers.

LP, depending on the cartridge and other factors, can easily reproduce freqs into the 30~40KHz region before mechanical limitations come into play.

the original CD digital format (aka Sony-Philips Redbook format) however is purely limited to 22.05KHz. This means that in the recording process to make a Master-tape for CD, the studio/sound engineers will need to filter the original recording (usually from analog 30ips tapes, or in today's age, digital 24bit/192KHz raw formats into some big harddrive) and freq-limit it to 20KHz before cutting to the "master CD" (actually a master Stamper).


This is the limitation imposed by the "Nyquist Frequency" aka "Sampling Theorem". U can read more about it at Wikipedia or some tech websites if u r keen to learn more.

THT89 wrote:

Nyquist Frequency.. OK.

Anyway, just read that actually it's not that the engineers don't want to make the sampling bit higher, but just that our computers are not fast enough to handle the data rate of that size when recording.

But, why not they record in phonograph first and then, make the phonograph spins slowly, and slowly slowly convert the data into higher bit, i.e half the data rate can make more bits to be sampled. Just crazy thoughts! Crazy thoughts! HAHA! or maybe 24 bits is very good enough already.. ? LOL

But this is very not true from economical view, since the CD format standard has to be changed and more processes imply more cost. Today's CD standard, with the purely limited 22.05kHz, good enough already, good enough.. If want better, go for LP maybe? Never heard LP before, no comment, but i "feel that" it's better (post modernism youngster's characteristic, LOL)..

Yes ... back in the early 80s, its a real strain for the computers and the microchips to process 2 to 3 Mbits/second needed for a CD-Audio stream.
And they also wanted to squeeze at least 74 minutes of playing time into one single disc.

Now, our typical LAN networks are already doing Gigabit speeds (Gigabit Ethernet).

Also just compare the storage capacity. a typical CD is around 700~800MB.
But a Blu-Ray disc today can store 50GB of data on one layer alone. Dual layer BD would be 100GB already.

More processing power & more bytes for storage today.. means we can use much much much more digital bits to "represent" the original analog sound as compared to the old Redbook CD Audio format that is more than 20 years old already.

As for the slow spinning .. yes, there are studios that do "half-speed" mastering .... and u can make a much more high resolution master.

But this has no relation to the final digital resolution on the CD format.
The CD format is still constrained at 16 bits resolution, 44.1KHz Analog to Digital sampling. This is non-negotiable for the CD audio format.

Any change to this spec, and its not Industry standard Redbook anymore.

Don't be misled by the CD album labels that says 20 bit mastering, 24 bit mastering , K2 process, K3 K4 process ..etc etc etc..
This only refers to HOW they did the master.. and yes they would make a damn high quality master which would still translate to benefits in the final CD product.

BUT whats playing in your standard CD player ... resolution is still 16 bits, 44.1KHz.

Yes Mugenfoo, Chairman Mao would be most upset if anyone messed around with the Redbook.

bimmerman wrote:Yes Mugenfoo, Chairman Mao would be most upset if anyone messed around with the Redbook.

U got one ? i actually have an english version !

I ain't no commie dude. Whatcha doin wit dat l'il redbook anyways? J. Edgar would like to have a word with you.

Analog or digital? Well, I don't know but them soundwaves eminating from those speakers are analog and those drums that catch those waves in your ear are analog and the brains inside your head which decodes the signals from those eardrums are analog.

So, analog or digital? I suppose the question should best be applied to the transcription method applied to the storage of your audio. And if that is the question, my take on the subject is that analog transcription sounds best to my ears. But of the more expensive redbook setups come very close. I have limited experience with the new 24/192 formats but I suspect these have the potential to be the best yet.

If analogue sound is the benchmark of digital playback, then why don't stick analogue...

Don't stick analog because analog don't got all the titles that digital got.

Mr bimmer, in a way you're right..

But I know that in the end, we will all embrace digital as the format of the future. Why? Because it exceeds analogue masters in resolution and banishes tape hiss forever.

As for playback, gone are the pops and crackles and vinyl wear/stylus wear. Your digital files will retain it's quality forever regardless of how many times you play it back.

Unless of course your hard disk crashes. So, backup often. And why not? Storage is cheap nowadays.

Beemie, good to know that you've not succumbed to this problem called "CD-Rot".

As for digital being the format of the future, no need. It is here already.

Only problem is that in today's age of storage and bit-processing abundance, the aged and tired CD format is still being produced and championed by the Record Industry.

Heck, if everything were to switchover to 24/192 DSD formats ... this would be a great hurrah (until some smart alec comes along and reveals the sonic flaws of this new format and then re-shouts that vinyl still superior), but until there is ubiquity of the SACD format for ALL TITLES past, present and future, the flaws of the aged, tired and well-beyond obsolescence 16bit 44.1KHz format is still a haunting ghost that just wont die.

What did Michael Fremer say about Digital ?

"Digital preserves music the way formaldehyde preserves frogs: you kill
it, and it lasts forever!"

This may not be true to today's higher-resolution digital formats, but it certainly closes the case for on Redbook Audio.

bimmerman wrote:Don't stick analog because analog don't got all the titles that digital got.

You'd be surprised that there are alot of old titles on vinyl that just didnt make it to digital...

mugenfoo wrote:
But this has no relation to the final digital resolution on the CD format.
The CD format is still constrained at 16 bits resolution, 44.1KHz Analog to Digital sampling. This is non-negotiable for the CD audio format.

this is so true

mugenfoo wrote:
What did Michael Fremer say about Digital ?

"Digital preserves music the way formaldehyde preserves frogs: you kill
it, and it lasts forever!"

I like this! Don't know should i laugh or be sad..

THT89 wrote:

mugenfoo wrote:
What did Michael Fremer say about Digital ?

"Digital preserves music the way formaldehyde preserves frogs: you kill
it, and it lasts forever!"

I like this! Don't know should i laugh or be sad..

Mugenfoo, I love that Fremer quote!!! How true!!!

But alas, nothing is forever, remove that formaldehyde and the frog will still rot. I have one Suzanne Vega CD which started to rot about 20 years ago. Luckily the spider webs have not spread into the playing area so it still sounds as good as new. Out of the many CDs that i own, this is the only one with rot. Hey, one in a thousand ain't bad!

Vinyl rots too.

vinyl doesn't rot with climate but mode from either termites or chemical attacks like washing with soap or other caustic agents.


a well kept 50 year old vinyl is common amongst serious collectors.

CD's aluminium coatings , depending on how good is a the sealing lamination would still be prone to oxidation. But well, lets see if most CDs survive past the 50year mark or not .... time will tell.

mugenfoo wrote:
CD's aluminium coatings , depending on how good is a the sealing lamination would still be prone to oxidation. But well, lets see if most CDs survive past the 50year mark or not .... time will tell.

i had an original norah jones cd that suddenly started causing the laser to skip. i checked and it was not scratched, so i gave it a good wipe thinking that there could be a layer of grime on it. the laser still skipped.

then i took out the cd and looked at it against the light - there was a hole in the aluminium reflective layer....

the cd was definitely not 50 years old; in fact it was a couple of months old.

as a matter of fact vinyl format is future proof actually. It can be played without high tech decoder/format/gadget. Unlike other digital that depends on new technology and soon will be outdated. When music going to be sold wholly via web site and store in SSD (solid state drive-music server) and the time when no one producing cdp anymore, just like Laserdisc...dead. But you can still find VHS player and yet at anytime can be converted/transfered into DVD, just like vinyl with usb..imho

sting wrote:as a matter of fact vinyl format is future proof actually. It can be played without high tech decoder/format/gadget. Unlike other digital that depends on new technology and soon will be outdated. When music going to be sold wholly via web site and store in SSD (solid state drive-music server) and the time when no one producing cdp anymore, just like Laserdisc...dead. But you can still find VHS player and yet at anytime can be converted/transfered into DVD, just like vinyl with usb..imho

Ich dun think so ...

Which shop is still selling VHS player today ?
If u know of any shop, please share becoz I also wanna buy one VHS player, must have "hi-fi stereo" and Multisystem so i can play alot of my nostalgic video tapes (provided they haven't turn into a petri dish for fungi cultivation yet).

Mugen, I know that it's hard to find shops that selling VHS player maybe in our country but in the States they still selling it even in few other countries that I've been. I do found player that they have vcd and vhs in one console. My 1988 player still working until to date...he..he.

Transfer service from VHS to DVD are still being provided by some studio or videographer