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”).
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:
Also, here’s an expert saying that, at best, people can’t tell the difference:
And another article that says the same thing, essentially:
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:
(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.)
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.
I think there are two key points Derleth’s quotes touch on
and
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.
Ah! Clever, thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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”.
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.
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.