# Digital VS Analog Audiod: Has Anyone Proven ANY Difference? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 23, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163 "2013-01-23T23:54:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/21 "2013-01-25T05:58:30Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Compressed music does sometimes sound better because it is a subjective thing. The word “compressed” is tricky in these discussions. The compression of an MP3 is a lossy compression that uses a variety of psycho-acoustic tricks to eliminate musical elements that the user might not hear at a particular instant. The compression to make an LP is reducing the dynamic range of the recording - the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds (note: idiot record executives have forced engineers to compress new pop and rock CDs to make them sound “louder” giving up one of the huge advantages of CDs - see [“loudness war”](http://youtu.be/3Gmex_4hreQ)). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/22 "2013-01-25T10:37:14Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Thanks for the replies..I’d just like to see a totally dispassionate, scientific test performed..that would settle the whole question for once and all. > BTW-are direct disc vinyl records still being made? You can’t test for it. The best you can do is have a test that says they are different or a test that says digital is a more faithful reproduction of the original recording, but nobody disputes that. The dispute is over which “sounds better” and that is purely subjective and can’t be tested for. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/23 "2013-01-25T11:34:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > You can’t test for it. The best you can do is have a test that says they are different or a test that says digital is a more faithful reproduction of the original recording, but nobody disputes that. The dispute is over which “sounds better” and that is purely subjective and can’t be tested for. Two problems with this: The first is that, sometimes, analog proponents _do_ claim analog recordings are better in terms of being more faithful reproductions. Saying that they aren’t really talking about that is shifting the goalposts. The second is that, often, people either can’t tell the difference between analog and digital, or they prefer digital. [For example, in this study, people preferred digital](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40319018?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101704602577): > [@](#): > > Results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. Higher rating means for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media. Also, [here’s an expert saying that, at best, people can’t tell the difference](http://vintageelectronicsrepair.com/digital-versus-analog-debate/): > [@Robert Guenther](#): > > Excellent analog systems are as good as excellent digital systems [snip] At this point, the technology has far exceeded the technologist. By that, I mean our equipment can now perform so well, the average person cannot hear the difference – high-end audio systems perform far better than the human ear. [And another article that says the same thing, essentially](http://www.maximumpc.com/article/columns/future_tense_digital_versus_analog): > [@](#): > > In double-blind listening tests, some of the best audiophiles in the world could not consistently tell the difference between the same source material presented in both analog and digital. Double-blind testing kills pretension. That’s why I love it so. Of course, this thread would be nothing without a little PALATR (Point And Laugh At The Retard) at the audiophools’ expense, [like how some of them think there’s a difference in quality among HDMI cables](http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/12/30/audiophiles-and-the-need-to-be-special/): > [@](#): > > People who say there is NO difference between HDMI cables are just trying to justify to themselves to go cheap. Now it does depend on what you are connecting the cable between. If you put this Carbon HDMI on a Cable or Satellite box, you probably won’t see that much of a difference compared to some middle grade cables. > > [snip] > > I connected this cable from my PS3 to my Samsung to first test it, then to my receiver. It was a nice upgrade from my previous Cinnamon cable, which is already a great cable in it’s own right. The picture’s motion was a bit smoother with gaming and faster action. I also noticed that film grain looked a little cleaner, not sure why though. > > The biggest upgrade was with my audio though. Everything sounded a little crisper with more detail. I also noticed that the sound fields were more distinct. Again not sure exactly why, but I will take the upgrade. (HDMI is purely digital. Bits is bits: If the data gets through correctly, it will work the same way regardless of how expensive the cable is. The only possible difference in quality that would be _real_, as opposed to imaginary, is if one cable were defective to the point of damaging the data. Not even the cheap cables are that bad.) ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/24 "2013-01-25T13:25:26Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > But the digital recording would capture the hiss and pops being output by the turntable. That would be the point. If a listener can’t accurately distinguish between an actual record, and a digital recording of a record, then the “analog is a better listening medium than digital” would be shown to be bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/25 "2013-01-25T15:14:45Z")
I think there are two key points Derleth’s quotes touch on > [@](#): > > Excellent analog systems are as good as excellent digital systems [snip] At this point, the technology has far exceeded the technologist. By that, I mean our equipment can now perform so well, the average person cannot hear the difference – high-end audio systems perform far better than the human ear. and > [@](#): > > In double-blind listening tests, some of the best audiophiles in the world could not consistently tell the difference between the same source material presented in both analog and digital. Ultimately, the information contained in a well produced Analog or Digital format is well beyond the capability of 99.9% of audio systems to faithfully reproduce. It’s also beyond the capability of 99.9% of listeners to reliably state one is superior to the other. In that sense, the formats are equally as good for audio reproduction (way better than we can hear and way better than our systems can reproduce). In terms of personal utility, ease of use, cost of equipment, durability, Digital kicks Analog’s ass. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/26 "2013-01-25T15:22:05Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > That would be the point. If a listener can’t accurately distinguish between an actual record, and a digital recording of a record, then the “analog is a better listening medium than digital” would be shown to be bogus. Ah! Clever, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/27 "2013-01-25T16:32:54Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > The word “compressed” is tricky in these discussions. The compression of an MP3 is a lossy compression that uses a variety of psycho-acoustic tricks to eliminate musical elements that the user might not hear at a particular instant. The compression to make an LP is reducing the dynamic range of the recording - the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds (note: idiot record executives have forced engineers to compress new pop and rock CDs to make them sound “louder” giving up one of the huge advantages of CDs - see [“loudness war”](http://youtu.be/3Gmex_4hreQ)). I was referring to compressing the dynamic range, but you make a good point. Back in the analog era hit making engineers would sometimes take their mixes and play them in a car, because Top 40 play to people in cars was how it was made, and they wanted to maximize the sound for that listener. Or so I am told. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/28 "2013-01-25T16:39:10Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > The supposed superiority of vinyl, tubes, etc. are much like the supposed superiority of 24fps film. Other technologies are actually superior at capturing and reproducing the sound or image, but the flaws of the older method are taken as hallmarks of “real” quality. The sonic blur of vinyl and soft-curved tube amps, and the visual blur of 24fps film, are seen as the real thing, while the more precise reproductions are somehow judged as second-rate. I agree about vinyl but disagree about tubes in amplifiers, specifically electric guitar amps. There is a distinct difference in the way a tube-driven amp sounds versus a solid state amp. I suppose its a preference thing but hard rock and heavy metal guitarists tend to prefer tube amps like Marshalls and Mesa Boogies for a reason, and it’s that warm, glassy distortion tone that good amps from those product lines produce that solid state amps can’t accurately replicate. A lot of blues players like tube amps too. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/29 "2013-01-25T16:54:20Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I agree about vinyl but disagree about tubes in amplifiers, specifically electric guitar amps. There is a distinct difference in the way a tube-driven amp sounds versus a solid state amp. I suppose its a preference thing but hard rock and heavy metal guitarists tend to prefer tube amps like Marshalls and Mesa Boogies for a reason, and it’s that warm, glassy distortion tone that good amps from those product lines produce that solid state amps can’t accurately replicate. A lot of blues players like tube amps too. there’s a difference between a guitar amplifier deliberately pushed into clipping and an amplifier meant for use while listening to music. I don’t think anyone in their right mind thinks there’s no difference between tubes and transistors once you start clipping the amplifier. Tube amps tend to “soft clip” and the shape of the clipped waveform produces more low-order distortion; transistor amps will go all the way to a square wave if you push them hard enough, which gets you that “harsher” high-order distortion. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/30 "2013-01-25T17:22:59Z")
> [@HennaDancer](#): > > I think there’s something to be said for the post about stuff that was created to be on vinyl. I bought Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours CD and loved it. Years later I bought the LP and played it on my parents’ record player of about the same vintage. It was like a whole different album. I recorded it on a cassette from the record and still preferred the sound to the CD. This was well before I found out that many people feel that way, so anecdotal, yes, but unbiased. You are not alone. I have Derek and the Dominos “Layla” album on both LP and CD. One day I digitized the LP and burned it to CD to see how it would sound. And I found that I vastly prefer it to the store-bought CD, pops and hiss and all. I’m not saying it sounds “better,” mind you; just that I like it better that way. It feels more authentic somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/31 "2013-01-25T18:35:09Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I agree about vinyl but disagree about tubes in amplifiers, specifically electric guitar amps. There is a distinct difference in the way a tube-driven amp sounds versus a solid state amp. The reproduction of a tube amp is less precise than most solid-state amps. Whether it sounds better or right-er or authentic-er is completely subjective (and I don’t necessarily disagree with those sentiments). But the argument of the high-end audiophile is that their expensive or hand-built or retro-tech equipment is more precise than modern equipment, which is mostly not so - they are just used to and preferring the characteristic sound of, say, tubes… or are just deluded. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/32 "2013-01-25T18:55:21Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I was referring to compressing the dynamic range, but you make a good point. Back in the analog era hit making engineers would sometimes take their mixes and play them in a car, because Top 40 play to people in cars was how it was made, and they wanted to maximize the sound for that listener. Or so I am told. What’s so stupid about it is that they are sacrificing the quality of every CD to sound louder _on the radio._ But every radio station already has a compressor on what comes out of the studio. So the sound is compressed twice! ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/33 "2013-01-25T19:10:34Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > You are not alone. I have Derek and the Dominos “Layla” album on both LP and CD. One day I digitized the LP and burned it to CD to see how it would sound. And I found that I vastly prefer it to the store-bought CD, pops and hiss and all. I’m not saying it sounds “better,” mind you; just that I like it better that way. It feels more authentic somehow. Aside from every other variable, the LP, while necessarily compressed, may in fact be _less_ compressed by one of the terrible new “remastered” CDs. One other factor. Many people have become so used to the compressed sound from radio and recent CDs that they _complain_ when a CD is not compressed. Kate Bush’s album _Aerial_ sounds amazing, and has a wide dynamic range, and on the Kate Bush fan forums, some were complaining that it wasn’t “loud enough” on their earbuds while working out at the gym. Apart from the whole concept of listening to a work of art like this album at the gym, why should my sublime listening experience on a good system be sacrificed for your inherently shitty one? So rather than hunting them down and slapping them, I explained how they could rip the CD and make compressed tracks for their player using [Audacity.](http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/34 "2013-01-25T21:09:24Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I agree about vinyl but disagree about tubes in amplifiers, specifically electric guitar amps. There is a distinct difference in the way a tube-driven amp sounds versus a solid state amp. I suppose its a preference thing but hard rock and heavy metal guitarists tend to prefer tube amps like Marshalls and Mesa Boogies for a reason, and it’s that warm, glassy distortion tone that good amps from those product lines produce that solid state amps can’t accurately replicate. A lot of blues players like tube amps too. Absolutely true, and even my amateur ear can tell the difference between a solid-state amp and a nice old tube amp (at least when I’m playing at home – probably all goes out the window with large-scale live sound or recorded sound). But a guitar amp is _creating_ a sound, and a stereo amp is at least supposed to be _reproducing_ sound. Big, big difference. ---
**Author:** ![Monkey\_Chews](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@Monkey\_Chews](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monkey_Chews)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/35 "2013-01-26T01:52:38Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Apart from the whole concept of listening to a work of art like this album at the gym Totally agree with everything you said except this. How on earth am I supposed to endure the living hell that is my thrice-weekly cardio unless I am immersing myself in a work of art such as Aerial? Because I am sure as shit not listening to the crap they pump through the loud speakers. (Actually, Aerial is one Kate Bush album I haven’t listened to at the gym, but more because of it’s delicacy and mood. But I listen to albums a lot there, and have fallen in love with many works of art while having a 45-minute-long heart attack under the harsh neon lights of my local gymnasium.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/36 "2013-01-26T02:17:05Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > You are not alone. I have Derek and the Dominos “Layla” album on both LP and CD. One day I digitized the LP and burned it to CD to see how it would sound. And I found that I vastly prefer it to the store-bought CD, pops and hiss and all. I’m not saying it sounds “better,” mind you; just that I like it better that way. It feels more authentic somehow. I have Layla on vinyl. Amazing. I have it on about 4 different CDs. Two of them are excellent. I’m still trying to get Forever Changes on a decent CD. I’ve one left to try out. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/37 "2013-01-26T04:11:38Z")
The real solution, in my opinion, would be to release special releases designed to take advantage of the full dynamic range. The people who care about that will pay a premium to get it. And maybe even have a special LOUD mix for people who want to listen while doing things. There’s no excuse for there being only one mix these days. It’s not like the cost of publishing is high. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/38 "2013-01-26T15:32:50Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The real solution, in my opinion, would be to release special releases designed to take advantage of the full dynamic range. The people who care about that will pay a premium to get it. And maybe even have a special LOUD mix for people who want to listen while doing things. > > There’s no excuse for there being only one mix these days. It’s not like the cost of publishing is high. The version with dynamic range is the version created by the artist. Everything else is created by the record company. So I’m totally opposed to paying more to get the real version. Radio stations don’t need a compressed version, as they already have compressors. Leave the CD uncompressed, and offer a special compressed “gym listening” version for those who don’t care about quality for download only. Either that, or add optional compression circuits to portable music players. Label it “gym mode” or “running mode”. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/39 "2013-01-26T16:10:08Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Of course, this thread would be nothing without a little PALATR (Point And Laugh At The Retard) at the audiophools’ expense, like how some of them think there’s a difference in quality among HDMI cables I know a guy who was telling me how expensive Toslink optical cables give you better sound than cheap ones. Because the ends of the fibre were more polished, and cheap optical link cables are dirty and not all the bits get through. Saying, “Dude, it’s a laser. Either it works or it doesn’t,” had no effect. Course this is the same guy that thinks that using 8 gauge solid conductor power cables for his amp really opened up the bass. Funny thing is that he’s an electrician and knows perfectly well that it’s 12awg wire from the outlet back to the panel, because that’s his day job. Audiophiles are crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163/40 "2013-01-26T16:38:24Z")
Besides the tests that have actually been performed, there’s also theoretical reasons why analog isn’t ‘better’ than digital in any objective way: by the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, you can encode analog signals digitally in such a way that the analog signal can be completely restored from the digital one; all you need is a sufficient sampling rate. So the digital signal contains as much information as the original analog. Furthermore, the way sound (or any information, really) is encoded in the human perceptive system is essentially digital: neurons operate by an ‘all-or-nothing’ principle, i.e. if a certain stimulus threshold is reached, the neuron depolarizes completely; if that threshold is not reached, it doesn’t do anything. So as long as you can mimic the triggering digitally (which you obviously can with a suitably fine-grained signal), there’s really no way for there to be any difference in perception between digital and analog. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/digital-vs-analog-audiod-has-anyone-proven-any-difference/648163.md?page=3)