Phil Leigh;663821 Wrote: > This thread has become tainted with an "analogue=better" mantra/line of > thinking. The reality - shocking though it may be - is that analogue is > not "better" (in any objective sense) than correctly engineered digital. > In fact the opposite is true. Some people might prefer certain > peculiarities of analogue but this has nothing to do with "better". I > myself used to be fond of my LP12... > > > When Chris (for whom I have great respect) said it sounded more > analogue, I immediately formed a mental image of how it sounded... > smoother, more relaxed/at ease, less "edgy"... but that's only because > when people say "analogue" that's what they most often mean (if they > mean anything at all). > > It's an unfortunate turn of phrase because "more analogue" strictly > speaking also means noisier, less dynamic, less pitch-stable, more > distorted etc etc...
You're right, analog comes with more pronounced distortion. However, analog distortion is of a different category. It is what sound engineers refer to as a 'soft knee' distortion, meaning it is mathematically elegant. Digital distortion, despite being much lower than analog, is not mathematically nor harmonically pleasing, but is rather random. That amounts to the harshness and hard edginess to our ears. I would assume (and I'm an ass in doing that), that popular DACs are the ones that are designed to somehow compensate for this harshness (or to cover it up). Correct me, I know I'm wrong. -- magiccarpetride ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81454 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
