TYP555 sounds "more analogue"

More analogue means less digital, of course!

'What does less digital mean then?', I hear you cry.

I have absolutely no idea! 

These vague descriptors will inevitably mean different things to different people, and as such are lazy at best, useless at worst.

You'd think that when it sounds digital is how resolution hits a brick wall, and analogue doesn't.

Could be the case when digital was young, but now with higher resolutions being offered, it's now how the sophistication of the analogue stage deals with the flow of numbers and information that makes for quality.

I never fell for that chestnut that price for price a turntable beats cd.

TOBYJUG posted:

You'd think that when it sounds digital is how resolution hits a brick wall, and analogue doesn't.

Could be the case when digital was young, but now with higher resolutions being offered, it's now how the sophistication of the analogue stage deals with the flow of numbers and information that makes for quality.

I never fell for that chestnut that price for price a turntable beats cd.

you don't know what you are missing.....only if your music interests are after the 90's.

Sound, which is what music is, is analogue. Analogue recordings, predominantly aka vinyl, may distort various aspects - frequency response, dynamic range, wave shape etc -  but still inherently is the same recognisable signal. Digital, on the other hand, chops the sound up into little 'snapshot' pieces, but not continuous, there being small gaps between samples and samples are rounded to the nearest quantum value, it then reassembles them and filters out the artefacts that are caused in the process, smoothing the miniscule steps of the waveform into something that, in theory, is indistingishable to the human ear.

AT least in the early days of digital, but even now to some extent in some equipment, the restoration of an analogue signal has defects that the human ear has learnt to assosicate with, and being  as being characteristic of, the digitising and reassembly process. So, to me, "analogue like" means that the reconstruction and filtering process is sufficiently good to remove any of that characteristic evidence from being evident to the listener - and it seems that has become a reality only very recently and with a small number of DACs, not necessarily related to theresolution (bit depth and sample rate) of the digital record. That is where the benefit of digital in not suffering most of the distortions of the analogue record-replay process really starts to shine - before that, it was a balance between pros and cons of each medium.

But of course it is all subjective, some people hearing nuances that others simply don't - and that applies to the positives and negatives of each medium.

With my experience of vinyl replay, with most material I was always wondering wether I had it set up right, wether the stylus had worn out and needed replacing, wether the record was worn out or needed cleaning,  doubts about wether what I was hearing was what I should be hearing. So many variables that I could never relax into a listening session before that urge took over to want to tinker with it.

Especially with the budget I used. 

Perhaps when someone says about an analogue sound, is really code for when someone is unsure about what they are really hearing.  

Sloop John B posted:

I often read sentences similar to TakeYourPick555 sounds more analogue with a double shielded anti-ferrite composite linear pulse cable than the standard stock cable. 

What does "sounds more analogue" actually mean?

Can upgrades make turntables sound more analogue?

~confused ~

 

I think most use it as a metaphor  as to sounding subjectively more natural / more attractive... and that is how I use it.. ..  as of course literally it is a meaningless statement

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Sloop John B posted:

I often read sentences similar to TakeYourPick555 sounds more analogue with a double shielded anti-ferrite composite linear pulse cable than the standard stock cable. 

What does "sounds more analogue" actually mean?

Can upgrades make turntables sound more analogue?

~confused ~

 

I think most use it as a metaphor  as to sounding subjectively more natural / more attractive... and that is how I use it.. ..  as of course literally it is a meaningless statement

Interesting...

Under that definition I would consider even 16/44.1 played back with decent equipment to sound more 'analogue'!

Personally I find the sound defects from vinyl to be more off-putting than those from a decent digital front end.

Ahh, but that is where the word 'subjectively' applies.... and yes I can find 16/44.1 on a CD555  or a Hugo sounding very 'analogue' indeed.

And of course most if not all modern vinyl is cut from digital masters, therefore the vinyl audio reproduction chain has simply become part of an extended digital reconstruction filter.... good game 

As you know all audio we hear is literally analogue, a file or stream of sample values is the alternate of being discrete values at points in time...

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

And of course most if not all modern vinyl is cut from digital masters, therefore the vinyl audio reproduction chain has simply become part of an extended digital reconstruction filter.... good game 

No one can argue, as you often say here, that most modern vinyl has digital origins; however, it's just that - modern vinyl. The vast majority of my vinyl listening is with 30+ year-old LPs of all analogue origin. To my ears there are distinct differences, most notably the overt compression, especially with bass, on modern versus vintage vinyl. On the other hand, any of the modern LPs I've chosen to buy have greater dynamic range than their CD counterparts.

Huge posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Sloop John B posted:

I often read sentences similar to TakeYourPick555 sounds more analogue with a double shielded anti-ferrite composite linear pulse cable than the standard stock cable. 

What does "sounds more analogue" actually mean?

Can upgrades make turntables sound more analogue?

~confused ~

 

I think most use it as a metaphor  as to sounding subjectively more natural / more attractive... and that is how I use it.. ..  as of course literally it is a meaningless statement

Interesting...

Under that definition I would consider even 16/44.1 played back with decent equipment to sound more 'analogue'!

Personally I find the sound defects from vinyl to be more off-putting than those from a decent digital front end.

Remember your calculus, the area under the curve!

The Smooth continuous curve of the Sin or Cos, to me that represents the Smooth SQ of the TT.

But as Hugh, points out, the Snap Crackle Pop can cost a fortune to remove.

And as Simon had pointed out, most modern vinyl is cut from the digital master.

So back to Calculus, the rectangular boxes can represent the choppy digital sound, which can be smoothed out to the nth degree when the integral effect has taken place.

Then the curve can be extrapolated to mimic the continuous Sin/Cos Curve!

Digital Replay at its best!

That's my subjective view! LOL.... 

Allante93!

So it's a "4 legs good, 2 legs bad"

The oppsoite to digital (which is BAD).

a euphemism for "good to nice" or a useful phrase when one wants a positive connotation. 

"Lazy at best, useless at worst", I like that. 

I suppose we are in the realms of dancing about architecture.

.sjb

Why assume digital is "BAD".

To my ears (/brain) digital is GOOD, as it has fewer of the artefacts of analogue recordings (and which I find more disturbing that the artefacts of digital recording).

It's all good........or not..............regardless of whether it's digital or analogue.  Many variables with both.

Whenever I've found digital beating analog I've improved the analog so of course it's ahead. It helps keep the future at bay.

Sloop John B posted:

I often read sentences similar to TakeYourPick555 sounds more analogue with a double shielded anti-ferrite composite linear pulse cable than the standard stock cable. 

What does "sounds more analogue" actually mean?

Can upgrades make turntables sound more analogue?

~confused ~

 

I've always taken "digital sound" as sounding "thin".

Historically, that is when digital replay had a way to go , analogue and digital meant the following to me:

Analogue - smooth, silky, rolled off, easy on the ear, slick, mellifluous

Digital - sharp, extended at the top end, tizzy, zingy, grainy, hard on the ear, processed, unatural

It is interesting that the words I have used to describe alalogue are rather complimentary, as if praising 'analogue' sound, whereas words I use to describe 'digital' are somewhat derogatory. This probably shows my age and betrays the fact I started my HiFi journey with vinyl, and then subsequently endured the early attempts at CD replay.

Which only reinforces my view that these terms are now rather out of date when trying to describe what we hear. Digital replay has come on a huge amount over the last couple of decades, particularly with the advent of hi res streaming and advances in DAC technology. I can now describe the sound emanating from my NDS source an truly analogue, something I couldn't have imagined in my vinyl and early CD days.

Kevin Richardson posted:

Sloop John B posted:

I often read sentences similar to TakeYourPick555 sounds more analogue with a double shielded anti-ferrite composite linear pulse cable than the standard stock cable. 

What does "sounds more analogue" actually mean?

Can upgrades make turntables sound more analogue?

~confused ~

 

I've always taken "digital sound" as sounding "thin".

I'm none the wiser!!!

Surely real sound waves are 'analogue', by which I mean they are complete and continuous signals, not sampled, processed and reconstructed (i.e. not digital). Hence, as far as I'm concerned when someone says that something sounds more 'analogue', I interpret it to mean more like real sound waves.

Analogue = Good

Digital = Bad

Therefore, more analogue = more good = less bad = less digital.

So, if less digital = more good

The conclusion must be, an infinitesimal amount of digital would result in an infinite amount of good.

Hope this helps.

Clive B posted:

Surely real sound waves are 'analogue', by which I mean they are complete and continuous signals, not sampled, processed and reconstructed (i.e. not digital). Hence, as far as I'm concerned when someone says that something sounds more 'analogue', I interpret it to mean more like real sound waves.

Exactly, and you don't need the quotes around the word analogue.. in other words the sound is continuous as time is continuous.. for it not to be continuous or analogue and instead we listen to discrete sound samples... then we would be listening to infinitely small bursts of a sound pressure separated by quantum jumps in time... not very practical really... I would go analogue all the time... even a little 8 bit DAC with no anti alias filter driving a high impedance speaker through a single transistor stage will be produce analogue sound although spoken audio will sound like Metal Mickey.

PS Allante93 I think you are mixing calculus and sample theory somewhat... integrals are continuous (analogue) functions, sample theory uses discrete functions.(  ∫ vs ∑ )

Clive B posted:

Surely real sound waves are 'analogue', by which I mean they are complete and continuous signals, not sampled, processed and reconstructed (i.e. not digital). Hence, as far as I'm concerned when someone says that something sounds more 'analogue', I interpret it to mean more like real sound waves.

Real sound waves, as in hearing real music and noise emanating from something in the flesh ?

Sound waves emanating from loudspeakers are not complete and continuous signals as they will have a brick wall limit in resolution. Other than distortions and background mush that resembles the distortions and background mush of real sound waves. That's not anologue, more analogous of our perception of it.

Sure if I was locked in a confined cell, with food and water, for a month with a loud hiss of white noise.  To stop myself going mad, I would start finding and listening to music and rhythms within it.

Off to the Padded Cell with this thread I fear.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Clive B posted:

Surely real sound waves are 'analogue', by which I mean they are complete and continuous signals, not sampled, processed and reconstructed (i.e. not digital). Hence, as far as I'm concerned when someone says that something sounds more 'analogue', I interpret it to mean more like real sound waves.

Exactly, and you don't need the quotes around the word analogue.. in other words the sound is continuous as time is continuous.. for it not to be continuous or analogue and instead we listen to discrete sound samples... then we would be listening to infinitely small bursts of a sound pressure separated by quantum jumps in time... not very practical really... I would go analogue all the time... even a little 8 bit DAC with no anti alias filter driving a high impedance speaker through a single transistor stage will be produce analogue sound although spoken audio will sound like Metal Mickey.

{PS Allante93 I think you are mixing calculus and sample theory somewhat... integrals are continuous (analogue) functions, sample theory uses discrete functions.(  ∫ vs ∑ )}

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, always nice to get your attention!

The graphs that came to mind represented the following:

"Digital signals must have a finite set of possible values. The number of values in the set can be anywhere between two and a-very-large-number-that’s-not-infinity. Most commonly digital signals will be one of two values – like either 0V or 5V. Timing graphs of these signals look like square waves.



Or a digital signal might be a discrete representation of an analog waveform. Viewed from afar, the wave function below may seem smooth and analog, but when you look closely there are tiny discrete steps as the signal tries to approximate values:

That’s the big difference between analog and digital waves. Analog waves are smooth and continuous, digital waves are stepping, square, and discrete."

Allante93!

PS: I wasn't that far off, nice to have you Engineers on board!

"Remember your calculus, the area under the curve!

The Smooth continuous curve of the Sin or Cos, to me that represents the Smooth SQ of the TT....."

But as Hugh, points out, the Snap Crackle Pop can cost a fortune to remove.

And as Simon had pointed out, most modern vinyl is cut from the digital Master..."

Allante93 posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Clive B posted:

 

 

 

That’s the big difference between analog and digital waves. Analog waves are smooth and continuous, digital waves are stepping, square, and discrete."

I had, perhaps naively, assumed that the job of a DAC was to make these square waves nice and round again before they get anywhere near your ears!!

Not really    ... there are not really square waves with sampled values... there are a series of finite values for periods of time, but thinking of it as a square wave is simply a digital abstraction to help conceptual understanding ... however sampling theory says these values need  to be interpreted as the DAC as values at  infinitely small points of time separated by precise time periods... it uses a concept of the Dirac distribution function... and then this can be reconstructed using the sinc function and other filtering functions as necessary to create an analogue continuum. The timing and time interval between these pulses becomes critical and this is what we refer to as the DAC clock...  deviation in this clock is what we can refer to as jitter.