# What if digital audio had never been invented?



## Guest

I find myself in total agreement!

https://www.stereophile.com/content/what-if-digital-had-never-happened


----------



## Bulldog

We live in a digital world; little point in grousing about it. Digital audio does present some problems, but you have to take the bad with the good. It was inevitable.


----------



## Triplets

The vinyl routinely being used when CDs arrived was unbelievably poor in quality. It's unimaginable what we would be listening to now had digital not arrived


----------



## Pugg

Kontrapunctus said:


> I find myself in total agreement!
> 
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/what-if-digital-had-never-happened


I like the comment people made, see someone called " digital" about his phone.


----------



## jegreenwood

I leapt on the digital audio bandwagon almost immediately with relatively few regrets. All pairs of ears are different, but I despised the surface noise of vinyl records - in many ways I preferred cassettes. 

As for the rest of it - just too hypothetical to respond to. Are we imagining a world where everything other than audio is digital? Or a world without personal computers, smartphones and the Internet? As much as I love music, digital technology has changed other aspects of my life more than my listening experience.


----------



## premont

If digital audio had never been invented, we would (fortunately) not have known, what we were missing..


----------



## Art Rock

Pirating would definitely be less (limited to lower quality copies on tape).


----------



## Marc

Kontrapunctus said:


> I find myself in total agreement!
> 
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/what-if-digital-had-never-happened


Well, Kontrapunctus, fingers crossed, who knows someday _that audio you like is going to come back in style_....


----------



## Guest

Record stores, as we once knew them, would still be open. RIP Tower Records.


----------



## bigshot

I worked in production sound in the analogue era and I've worked sound in the digital era. I would NEVER go back. Digital is infinitely better in just about every way.


----------



## Merl

What a tedious article from Stereophile (the musical equivalent of the Flat-Earth Society). Personally, I would like to say a big thank you to all those involved in music's digital technology for finally making the music I listen to easy to transport, access and hear without pops, scratches, crackles and jumps. Much as i sympathise with some sentiments of this article (eg. the loudness wars) the rest of it reeks of nostalgia for a format that had serious technical flaws and I was happy to see the back of.


----------



## Bulldog

Kontrapunctus said:


> Record stores, as we once knew them, would still be open. RIP Tower Records.


I also miss record stores, but with each passing year I miss them less and less. I hope I get to the point where I never even think of them.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I worked in production sound in the analogue era and I've worked sound in the digital era. I would NEVER go back. Digital is infinitely better in just about every way.


How, exactly is digital "infinitely better in just about every way"? You mean it measures better? That's certainly not a guarantee of better sound. I can assure you that my Prima Luna tube amp has inferior specs compared to my previous solid state Pass Labs amp, yet to my ears the PL is "infinitely better" with respect to sounding more like real music. The same goes for my modified Revox PR 99 and my Tandberg TD 20A decks compared to the Sony PCM recorder that I borrowed from a friend during my recording days. Yes, it measured better but it "freeze-dried" the music! Digital and analog seem to capture harmonic overtones differently, which is what I think accounts for the difference in sound. Digital just seems to lack "body" to my ears.

Unfortunately, I have had to buy into the digital realm since a lot of music or certain performances are not available on LP, and I've had to spend a small fortune to buy a CD/SACD player (Esoteric K-03) to get some semblance of analog sound. In my experience, pure DSD SACDs come close, but not typical RBCDs, especially those sourced from early digital master tapes.

For me, even with all of its measurable ills, analog will always sound more musical and real. 
(Please note that I am not stating my views in absolute terms such as you are wont to do!)


----------



## bigshot

Here are some reasons why digital is better off the top of my head. I'm sure I can think of more.

No generation loss. Protection masters are identical to the master.
More tracks possible
No need to constantly calibrate your equipment
One computer does the job of multiple locked tape or mag machines
No tape dropouts to work around
No risk of physically damaging your master
Better options for reverb, and much more effective and imaginative filters available
Non destructive editing and filtering. Magic undo button!
Archive material instantly available. No need to pull boxes from a vault.
Archiving mix elements and submixes is a breeze.
Ability to ship masters over the internet, not physically mail them
Media is much less expensive
Recording equipment is less expensive and performs better
Tracking is faster because it doesn't involve physical automation of the master tape
Automation of the board is more precise
Production goes faster
Dynamic range allows for larger corrections in the mix
Digital EQ is more precise, flexible and cleaner than analogue EQ
Quality of the consumer format is much higher and much more predictable. No more distortion at the center grooves.
Multichannel sound is much easier
Easier to lock to video. No crystal sync or sprocket holes needed.
More control of how the final product is going to end up
What you hear is what you get. (This one is huge.)

The only thing in final mastering that is the same as digital is sound quality. A tape deck running at 15ips sounds just as good as digital, even though it doesn't have the latitude for correction that a 24/96 digital master does. But in straight playback of mixed and mastered 2 channel music, they are equivalent.

Also, we are able to measure and quantify sound quality to a level that far exceeds the thresholds of human hearing. Specs are a good gauge of potential sound quality. But there are a million reasons that recorded sound can sound bad. Almost all of the time that is because of bad engineering choices, not the fault of the machine.


----------



## bigshot

Everyone talks about hot mastering being something related to digital, but it isn't. It's a choice made by engineers and record labels, the same way they made the choice to compress the dynamics out of very long playing record sides where they had to cut grooves shallower to fit a half hour onto a record side. 45s were cut with a coarser groove and a shorter running time so they were able to pack in more bass and dynamic peaks, especially compared to the center grooves on an LP.


----------



## Becca

The real downside to the digital revolution is the proliferation of MP3 and other lossy compression formats. After almost 100 years of progression in reproduction technology, we had one massive step backwards.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Here are some reasons why digital is better off the top of my head. I'm sure I can think of more.
> 
> No generation loss. Protection masters are identical to the master.
> More tracks possible
> No need to constantly calibrate your equipment
> One computer does the job of multiple locked tape or mag machines
> No tape dropouts to work around
> No risk of physically damaging your master
> Better options for reverb, and much more effective and imaginative filters available
> Non destructive editing and filtering. Magic undo button!
> Archive material instantly available. No need to pull boxes from a vault.
> Archiving mix elements and submixes is a breeze.
> Ability to ship masters over the internet, not physically mail them
> Media is much less expensive
> Recording equipment is less expensive and performs better
> Tracking is faster because it doesn't involve physical automation of the master tape
> Automation of the board is more precise
> Production goes faster
> Dynamic range allows for larger corrections in the mix
> Digital EQ is more precise, flexible and cleaner than analogue EQ
> Quality of the consumer format is much higher and much more predictable. No more distortion at the center grooves.
> Multichannel sound is much easier
> Easier to lock to video. No crystal sync or sprocket holes needed.
> More control of how the final product is going to end up
> What you hear is what you get. (This one is huge.)


Except for the last item, and that one is highly debatable, none of those relate to the _realism_ of the sound. I know that is a highly subjective perception, but _*to my ears*_ all PCM recordings lack a sense of full-bodied realism and warmth compared to analog. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## chill782002

It's ironic that a friend of mine obsessively collects 32/192 digital transfers sourced from vinyl. The files are absolutely massive and I can't discern any difference between that and a 24/96 transfer of the same material and played back through the same system. Maybe I'm paying for all those rock concerts I went to in my youth, or maybe it genuinely doesn't make any difference discernable to the human ear.


----------



## bigshot

Kontrapunctus said:


> Except for the last item, and that one is highly debatable, none of those relate to the _realism_ of the sound. I know that is a highly subjective perception, but _*to my ears*_ all PCM recordings lack a sense of full-bodied realism and warmth compared to analog. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Realism is created by good miking and mixing, not the recording format. You're probably just reacting to a different school of thought on how music should be recorded. It isn't the fault of the format, it's that time and tastes have changed. I'm sure if you heard a properly digitized copy of your favorite analogue recording, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and the original in a controlled A/B comparison.

It also might be that your system is equalized with an emphasis in the higher frequencies that doesn't affect analogue recordings with a high end roll off in those same frequencies.



Becca said:


> The real downside to the digital revolution is the proliferation of MP3 and other lossy compression formats. After almost 100 years of progression in reproduction technology, we had one massive step backwards.


That depends on the codec and bitrate. Not all lossy is the same. For instance if you encode the best sounding CD you own in AAC at 256 or above, I guarantee you that you won't be able to discern the lossy from the CD. There is a point where lossy audio becomes audibly transparent.



chill782002 said:


> It's ironic that a friend of mine obsessively collects 32/192 digital transfers sourced from vinyl. The files are absolutely massive and I can't discern any difference between that and a 24/96 transfer of the same material and played back through the same system. Maybe I'm paying for all those rock concerts I went to in my youth, or maybe it genuinely doesn't make any difference discernable to the human ear.


The best sounding LPs generally go from around 35Hz to 15kHz with a dynamic range of around 40dB. 16/44.1 is capable of 20Hz to 20Khz with a dynamic range of over 70dB. Even regular plain vanilla CD is overkill for LPs. I did a test capturing the best sounding LP I own (Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2) at both 24/96 and 16/44.1. I line level matched and compared both to the original LP. I couldn't discern any difference. So I took the 16/44.1 track and encoded it AAC 256 VBR. Still no difference. At a certain point bigger numbers make absolutely no difference to human ears.

Dogs and bats might hear things differently though. But my dog can buy his own stereo if he wants to hear the stuff I can't.


----------



## KenOC

If digital audio had never been invented? I doubt you could buy a very fine complete Beethoven quartet cycle for 99 cents...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N6SWRVG/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk


----------



## Triplets

Becca said:


> The real downside to the digital revolution is the proliferation of MP3 and other lossy compression formats. After almost 100 years of progression in reproduction technology, we had one massive step backwards.


Yes, but we don't have to live with it. Most recordings are available in higher resolution than MP3. You get what you pay for
And at least MP3 doesn't have pops, clicks and speed instability, and isn't manufactured from vinyl hauled out of a landfill


----------



## chill782002

bigshot said:


> The best sounding LPs generally go from around 35Hz to 15kHz with a dynamic range of around 40dB. 16/44.1 is capable of 20Hz to 20Khz with a dynamic range of over 70dB. Even regular plain vanilla CD is overkill for LPs. I did a test capturing the best sounding LP I own (Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2) at both 24/96 and 16/44.1. I line level matched and compared both to the original LP. I couldn't discern any difference. So I took the 16/44.1 track and encoded it AAC 256 VBR. Still no difference. At a certain point bigger numbers make absolutely no difference to human ears.
> 
> Dogs and bats might hear things differently though. But my dog can buy his own stereo if he wants to hear the stuff I can't.


Interesting, thank you. I've always thought that I could hear a subtle difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. It seemed somehow to have more depth and warmth and to better reproduce the "feel" of analogue sound although maybe I was just imagining that. No difference at all between 32/192 and 24/96 as far as I could hear though.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm happy, never got rid of my records or turntable- so have enjoyed picking up what others threw or gave away in terms of some very tasty records and equipment, back before vinyl start to come back onto vogue


----------



## KenOC

We're all different. I can't hear any difference -- any at all -- between a CD and a 256 VBR MP3 file. But my ears are aged. Nonetheless, it's nice to have beer tastes when you have a beer budget.


----------



## realdealblues

I love records and CD's. 

What I don't like is the move to stream everything. I use my phone mostly as a phone. Occasionally I will look something up, like if I'm standing in Barnes & Noble and can't recall who wrote a book I want to buy or I might make a note of stuff I want to get at the grocery store but I have limited data and several places I travel every day have no cell service so the whole streaming thing does me absolutely no good for music. I have no cell reception at work because I am in a basement, etc. 

I need physical copies of things that I can take with me which is why I love CD's, or at least an iPod or MP3 player I can use as nothing other than a music player. I rip my CD's and LP's into iTunes so I can take them with me as well. My other issue is that I literally have thousands of recordings you can't purchase from places like iTunes or Amazon MP3. They are only on record or CD or cassette.

I also miss record stores tremendously. I have to order everything online and wait a week to get it where I use to be able to just drive uptown and purchase what I wanted.

I really don't fit in the modern world...


----------



## Bulldog

realdealblues said:


> I also miss record stores tremendously. I have to order everything online and wait a week to get it where I use to be able to just drive uptown and purchase what I wanted.


That's what I miss the most - the instant gratification factor.


----------



## realdealblues

Bulldog said:


> That's what I miss the most - the instant gratification factor.


The other thing I miss is just being able to browse. Look through the racks and be like "Oh, I didn't know this existed" or "Oh, this looks interesting, and it's on sale or in the discount rack, what the heck, I'll give it a try".


----------



## jegreenwood

Bulldog said:


> That's what I miss the most - the instant gratification factor.


One word: downloads.


----------



## Dan Ante

jegreenwood said:


> One word: downloads.


*One word Torrents.*
I consider The CD superior to the old 12" LPs, from what I understand the LP was compressed to get more per record, and as KenOC said the difference in audio quality is undetectable, at least to most people say mp3 @ 320 kbps, The CD is user friendly, I would not go backwards to vinyl.


----------



## bigshot

realdealblues said:


> The other thing I miss is just being able to browse. Look through the racks and be like "Oh, I didn't know this existed" or "Oh, this looks interesting, and it's on sale or in the discount rack, what the heck, I'll give it a try".


Rip your music to a music server and have it import album graphics. You can browse exactly the same on your phone and not have to get a stiff neck from reading the spine sideways.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

"What if digital audio had never been invented?"

Fine with me. I have always enjoyed my vinyl lps.


----------



## gardibolt

I miss browsing in music stores (a great deal of my musical education came from reading the backs of LPs back in the day).

But beyond that, digital has been a godsend. No more clicks, pops and skips. And most importantly, because of the convenience of the format, I listen to MUCH more music now than I ever did in the analog days. I do not miss the ritual of carefully cleaning the record, checking the tone arm, sitting in precisely the right spot and being rooted to it for the duration, until it was time to flip the LP. Now I have entire operas on my iPod Classic that will play straight through without interruption every 22 minutes, and it goes where I go, even on vacation, or I can take it to work. I can sort and revise it in any way I care to with Smart Playlists. I can surprise myself with shuffle, or I can program all my recordings of Liszt's Sonata in B minor to play back to back. Now I get to listen to my music 4-5 hours per day or more--as opposed to maybe an hour now and then, when I could get myself to perform the ritual. Nope. I would never go back. 

Analog got in the way of enjoying the music; digital helps make it much more possible.


----------



## dillonp2020

I am down to SACDs and hi-resolution digital, but the typical digital CD doesn't do it for me. I firmly believed that when cared for and played correctly, vinyl records are superior to CDs in a myriad of ways. Vinyl produces a much more realistic and concert-like feel, in my opinion.


----------



## KenOC

dillonp2020 said:


> II firmly believed that when cared for and played correctly, vinyl records are superior to CDs in a myriad of ways.


A myriad, of course, is ten thousand. I doubt that, even with a surfeit of imagination, you could enumerate even a hundredth of that. I get stuck on just one! :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> A myriad, of course, is ten thousand. I doubt that, even with a surfeit of imagination, you could enumerate even a hundredth of that. I get stuck on just one! :lol:


Each to his or her own I say but my ears tell which is best when done properly


----------



## Lenny

Interesting article. I think many people miss the point - it is NOT about the recording format itself. That is not relevant, it really doesn't matter if the audible "stuff" is written as binary on some media or not. As many have pointed out, human hearing is limited, and even if it were not, we can easily imagine extending the resolution up to quantum level, which is the "resolution of reality" itself.

In my opinion the article was more about the music industry and emancipation in the digital age. It even says it directly: masses now own "ipads" they use for downloading crap. What if they never got that stuff, and instead would just buy the products produced by (now lost) high-end studios? Make recording studios great again!

To some extent I agree - emancipation of the information affects all areas of human existence. Audio is no different. We just have to accept that the "mob" has access to digital information in all forms. And it gets even worse - the "mob" now can also participate in producing information. What a horrible thing!

In my opinion, the possibility of kids access and produce ANYTHING with just a cheap laptop is one the best thing ever happened. Be prepared: it gets much worse (or better - depending how we react). Soon the entire population of the planet will be part of this digital revolution. I'm sure it will cause some troubles and turbulence, but there are not alternatives. Information cannot be undone.


----------



## dillonp2020

KenOC said:


> A myriad, of course, is ten thousand. I doubt that, even with a surfeit of imagination, you could enumerate even a hundredth of that. I get stuck on just one! :lol:


Counting has never been my strength in Ancient Greek class.


----------



## bigshot

I can think of a few ways that LPs are better than CDs... The album covers are nicer and more readable, there's a lot of great music that never made it from LP to CD, and you can buy used LPs at swap meets for a buck or two a disk. When it comes to sound quality, durability and convenience, CDs are the best.


----------



## Dan Ante

bigshot said:


> I can think of a few ways that LPs are better than CDs... The album covers are nicer and more readable, there's a lot of great music that never made it from LP to CD, and you can buy used LPs at swap meets for a buck or two a disk. When it comes to sound quality, durability and convenience, CDs are the best.


Totally agree, todays promotion of Vinyl is just a cash in and money making con job, although I have a collection of the old 12 inch records I only play them for the memories they conjure up.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Jeeze guys, what sort of vinyl set up did you guys have, sounds like it was bloody awful, most likely some Pioneer or other plastic set up with low fi cartridge and low fi sound. Why even my wife comments these days how she notices when I put on a CD, how much better vinyl sounds when we play one........................


----------



## Dan Ante

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Jeeze guys, what sort of vinyl set up did you guys have, sounds like it was bloody awful, most likely some Pioneer or other plastic set up with low fi cartridge and low fi sound. Why even my wife comments these days how she notices when I put on a CD, how much better vinyl sounds when we play one........................


My system is old (like me) but gives good results and yes the TT is basic but I have heard vinyl on good TT (at our monthly music evenings) and sure there is a difference in that it sounds less dynamic not crystal clear so a duller sound, I well remember the first CD that I heard it was in a music shop and I was up on level 2 and thought there was a live performance at ground level.

system is:
Speakers………………….KEF 104/2 Reference
Amp……………………….Plinius 100 Class "A" 
Pre Amp…………………..Carver C1 
CD Player…………………Cambridge Audio 351C (a new addition) 
Head phones……………….Sennheiser HD 580 precision
Tuner………………………Audiolab 8000T 
Tape deck………………….Sony TC-K511S 
TurnTable ………………….Technics SL-J110R (just a basic)
Interconnects……………… Hand made directional. 
Speaker cables …………….Hand made (cat 5)


----------



## bigshot

I've got a Thorens TD-165c with an Ortofon moving coil cartridge. It sounded good and didn't wear the records, but comparing format to format, even a Walmart DVD player sounds better.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

SysteSpeakers………………….AR 93
Amp………………………. pre Nad 2040 Power
Pre Amp…………………..Nad 1020B 
CD Player…………………Rotel RVD 1050E
Head phones……………….Sennheiser HD 580 
Tape deck………………….Nak RX 202 
Interconnects……………… Nothing special
Speaker cables …………….Linear Crystal Quad core

system 2
SysteSpeakers………………….Wharfdale Dovedale Sp
Amp………………………. Cambridge Audio 640V2
CD Player…………………Sony DVP-N62K
Head phones……………….Sennheiser HD 580 
Tape deck………………….Teac V700
TurnTable ………………….Sherwood with At95E cart
Phono....................... Vincent PHO-8 
Tuner ………………….Luxman T404
Interconnects……………… Nothing special
Speaker cables …………….Nothing special


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Hey can't edit here 
first system has Mantra manticore Turntable with mission turnarm and Denon 103 MC cart


----------

