"No serious music lover is going to choose one format over another. I have lots of LP’s that have yet to be released on CD, and lots of albums that are still available only on CD. You think I’m going to let the available format of any given recorded music determine if I will obtain and listen to it?! Superior sound quality is a bonus, not the point. Some of my favorite music is available only in far-from-great recorded sound quality. Toscanini’s Beethoven Symphonies, Glenn Gould’s everything, Hank Williams’---the Hillbilly Shakespeare---songs of longing, Howlin’ Wolf’s primal screams, Little Richard’s and Johnny Burnette’s insanely great Rock ’n Roll masterpieces, Louis Jordan’s Jump Swing band, the list is very long. You listen to your great sound, I’ll listen to my great music." Could not agree more. |
It does. Thank you. I have used a lot of equipment over the years, but not the ADC1. Always heard good things about it.
|
|
At the risk of your system being put down orpheus10 (not by me), care to share what you are doing for your A/D, and what the parameters are, i.e. 24/192, 2xDSD, bandwidth settings of the ADC, etc.
|
The best of both worlds is to down-load your vinyl to hard drive; that way you can hear your records in any order you choose from the convenience of your listening chair.
There is not one iota of anything lost in my rig as a result of down-loading vinyl to hard-drive. There are many others who are getting the same results. Anyone who's not getting proper results is not doing something right.
|
+1 2channel8. On a related thought, how about the quality comparison between CD players vs.turntables at budget end of the spectrum, say $500? |
For one, there was the whole "progress" thing. When CD came along, the selling slogan was "Perfect sound forever". And eveeryone discovered that the sound was far from perfect, so far from it. But then the high-end marketers came along and pro reviewers who all wanted to push the new format because ... we live in capitalism. Analog had achieved, as it turned out in retrospect, perfection, hence no where else to go with that. And there seemed to be a carrot on a stick aspect, that each new product was touted as the solution to digital nastiness.
Anyway for me, analog always sounded quite good even with a very modest ’table. But it’s just that LPs were finicky, getting scratched or having pops, etc etc. so in the end CD seemed more convenient.
Now LP and turntables are making a comeback of course which is really understandable -- analog was never worse, and it was never surpassed by digital, certainly not for most people who can’t afford to spend 20k for their stereo system.
|
I am not giving up any of my CDs, SACD,s DVD-As; etc. just as I never gave up any of my vinyl!!!!! I paid good money for all that stuff and almost all of it has given me a tremendous amount of enjoyment and still does. When I’m playing a LP I don’t ask myself if it sounds analog. When I’m playing a disc or FLAC file, it doesn’t occur to me to ask myself if it sounds analog, either. I just play what sounds good to me and enjoy it. I have examples of every media that are wonderful and a few that are absolute duds. But if a song or songs that are memorable for me are only available on dud recordings; I won’t deny myself the pleasure. I have also bought digital recordings of albums I have that sound better to me than the vinyl....although that is because I’ve worn out the vinyl in a few instances. |
For $20k total budget for speakers, amp/pre, digital (let’s say just streamer and dac, not cd) and analog (tt/cart/phonostage), how much would you spend on each to get best synchrony ? Leave cables and room treatment out for now.
Would this make sense?
Speakers 8k
amp/pre 5k
digital 3k
analog 4K.
Or would you tweak the above? |
Funny to read "warm" mentioned as "artificial" lol. I love warm music and a system that can play it. Two bosses of mine who use to also love saying warm were Louis Lane and Robert Shaw. mg |
Why would I want anything to sound "warm"? Warm is artificial. It is flawed. No thanks. |
All other things being equal, in my experience a good turntable/cartridge/Phono preamp combination still beats the crap out a good DAC or a CD (even when the digital unit is tuned and tweaked to sound as warm and analog as possible).
Good digital will beat middling or mediocre analog but it will not beat out a out a good analog rig.
If vinyl noise is an issue I would suggest you try a Sugarcube by a company called SweetVinyl. This component removes the the ticks and pops inaudibly-- and even though yes, it does this digitally (in the time domain), the AD-DA conversion is studio quality and in virtually all cases you will be unable to hear this device in your chain whether it's engaged or bypassed (they use hard relays for bypass so the audio passes through none of their circuitry). This is my opinion, but I do have a fairly high resolution system that picks up minute detail. I use it for noisy records only, usually it's in bypass mode. They have models that also rip your vinyl, split the tracks, and allow you to easily add the metadata just by entering the LP's catalog number. Best of both worlds. |
Putting aside mastering, I think well tuned digital surpasses analog above about $6k. Hi-rez is really exceptional, but even SoX upsampling from 16/44 is quite good now. Everything matters, and you have to pay a lot of attention to source PC, program, OS tuning, noise, power supplies, tweaks, etc but spinning disks are legacy tech now IMO. The bit about "good digital sounds like analog so why bother" is missing what's happening. As digital improves, it loses that harshness, glare and eventually becomes liquid and then tonally rich. So that trend is towards analog, but it retains all the benefits of digital too, low distortion, no surface noise, RIAA, wear, and physical limitations and resonances.
I’m very happy with a few years old Bel Canto stack RefLink, DAC3.5mk2, VBL, and looking forward to my next upgrade, probably the Black DAC-Pre with MQA and fed by an Ether-Regen. Agree with Jaytor, sold my TT and records in ’95 haven’t looked back, but it did take 20 years longer than I expected for digital to really excel. It’s still climbing faster in price/performance than analog too. |
I upgraded cartridge from 2k to 3.5k and it is big big sound improvement.There’s no comparison to digital I have Accuphase player not the top line ofcours , but analog sound crazy good compare to digital. Ofcours analog is little hassle but it is worth it . |
I don't have a turntable any more so I can't really comment on the comparison. But in the past few years of having access to good quality content through streaming, I have discovered more music I love than in the previous 40 years as an audiophile. I couldn't imagine giving that up at this point.
I love finding more music, and while I certainly have my favorites that I go back to often, I love discovering new artists, and even new genres that I never paid attention to in the past.
Since I am close to retiring, I am also watching my hifi budget much more than I have in years past, so the idea of splitting my more-limited budget between digital and analog doesn't make sense to me.
If I'm going to spend $3K, $5K, or $10K more on my audio system, I'd rather spend it on upgrading my digital front-end (or other components) instead of adding a decent quality turntable, tonearm, cartridge and phono stage. And that's before investing in any actual music, which is what it's all about. |
|
The minority? Doubtful. They just don't feel the need to get on the internet every chance they can get and bash vinyl .... they are too busy enjoying music .... and life.
|
The other variable is some folks actially prefer the sound of CD to vinyl but I think they're in the minority. Unfortunately some of these folks work as hifi reviewers. |
Oh my God, not this again....
Neither medium is perfect. Vinyl is an "illusion", recording goes thru all the RIAA curve matching before it is even fed to the amplifier. Digital is quantized and may lose some detail. NEITHER MATTERS COZ NOONE CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE.
Unless you go & listen to the recording LIVE in the studio, that is the way it is.
End of story.
|
A group of SoCal guys, I'm one of them, get together pretty often and compare stuff. We compare amps, tub, SS. Some guys have some really nice stuff. I normally use my Chord Qutest DAC as a source for amps. We recently started comparing DACs and TTs. The best of the best is a 45 RPM record - Vanessa Fernandez I Want You, or RoadHouses and Automobiles - that track by Chris Jones for $67.30 Vinyl on Amazon.
But in the $15-$30 Vinyl range many of us prefer the DAC. IT depends. REMs Automatic for the People is awful on my pressing. It is brighter. My Diana Krall albums sound better on my TT. The rest, I prefer my DACs (Qutest, Fiio M11Pro) - pumped through a Cary 300B SET amp or a a restored HH Scott. I think the tubes and speakers make the larger difference. |
@chayro great way to start off this discussion. Everyone
has their preference and stories.
As a music lover who just turned 60, I have gone
the complete spectrum when it comes to music. While serving in the Navy in late
70’s I invested in a high end audio system (Sansui G8700DB Receiver, Technics
Turntable, Bose 601 Series 1 Speakers, Sansui Graphic Equalizer/Reverb, and Teac
Cassette Deck). Sounded amazing and invested around $2,800 in 1979 dollars
(with the service member overseas discount). Along came the 80’s, copying LP’s
to cassettes, CD’s taking over and the halting of LP sales. Then the millennium
with MP3’s and other digital music files,
and of course out with the CD’s and CD Player and in with more modern equipment
to stream....
Two years ago I came across a vintage Sansui
G-8700DB Receiver and decided to go back in time. I always regretted selling my
old unit and loved that massive silver
face piece of art. Since I still had my albums, I then found a mint Denon
DP-62L Direct Drive Turntable https://www.tonepublications.com/old-school/denon-dp-62l-direct-drive-turntable/
and returned to my old records and what a sound it was.
I still stream with a
DAC and play CD’s connected through the old Sansui Aux input, but what a treat
to listed to the vinyl records. Everyone
that listens to my system agrees the sound is unique and better. I am now back
to collecting records once again. Although I prefer listening to records, I
still stream music (Amazon HD and Spotify) and play CD’s depending on the mood.
One thing for sure, my current equipment (Sansui G8700DB, Denon DP-62L, Kenwood
GE-1100 Equalizer, Klipsch Forte I’s) playing vinyl sounds amazing and will
stay this way until time makes me replace pieces. Incorporating a decent small
PC and CD Player running thru a DAC is an added bonus! (Not to mention using Klipsch
Gate Play-Fi Wireless Multi–Room Hubs to complete the package)
Long live Vintage hi-fi!
|
Moving targets. Straw men.
Its not just a river in Egypt. |
Same master recording, does not mean the same thing was cut to vinyl and CD. They have barely produced CD's since the 90's, only SACD and Vinyl. For over twenty years, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has continually
searched for the ultimate audio experience. During this search MFSL
engineers and associates created The GAIN™ System, a proprietary
mastering technology which brought warmth and ambience to the compact
disc format. millercarbon2,233 posts12-17-2019 11:13amYes,
that perfectly explains why I play the Mobile Fidelity CD and LP both
made from the exact same master by the exact same Mobile Fidelity and
everyone hears and no one can believe how much better the record sounds.
Because the digital source material is poor. Even though its not
digital. Nor poor. Nor even different. Right. Got it. |
Ignorance of a technology throws away 100% of the right answers. Digital, sampling at fixed intervals, throws away 90% of the timing
information. It always sounds completely unlike anything in nature!. |
I believe this is related. Sugar Cube...does it take away that "vinyl" sound. Reviews say it is very minimal to inaudible. Thoughts?
Here is what my high end audio dealer advised me back in May of 2019:
The idea behind the Suga Cube is enticing - making great sounding vinyl to digital transfers simple. To me, the most important aspect of that is the ability of the unit to accurately populate metadata, and they still in Beta for that part. I will say that the sound quality of the transfers is outstanding. The de-click function seems to be very good as well. As this point I'd say that some computer-fluency is important, so the idea of realizing the process truly simple isn't quite there.
|
@cleeds , in a hobby filled only with absolutes be glad you didn't get a POOMA value of 100%.
|
Regarding your statement that most music is now available on vinyl, either new or used. Here is what I have encountered when buying reissues. The mastering source of many reissues is from a digital copy of the master analog tapes, which is like listening to a CD on Vinyl, right? |
musicloversaudioDigital, sampling at fixed intervals, throws away 90% of the timing information. Hmmmm, how exactly did you calculate that??
|
In my experience, it takes a $6k DAC to sound nearly as good as vinyl, and a $15 DAC to really get there. I agree with others that this presumes a $2k table and $1k cartridge.
I think I finally understand why. For many years the conventional wisdom was that human hearing was only 20-20kHz, etc., entirely missing the point that timing is what is critical to human hearing. We need to localize unspecified threats precisely (in the woods at night...).
Digital, sampling at fixed intervals, throws away 90% of the timing information. It always sounds completely unlike anything in nature!.
|
Yes, that perfectly explains why I play the Mobile Fidelity CD and LP both made from the exact same master by the exact same Mobile Fidelity and everyone hears and no one can believe how much better the record sounds. Because the digital source material is poor. Even though its not digital. Nor poor. Nor even different. Right. Got it. |
A good digital source (not Oppo) will sound as good as a turntable given a decent recording/mastering. Problem is the majority the digital source material is poor, particularly the digital remasters of old analog recordings.
|
@audiozenology - Your comment about old ears or fan-boy vinyl certainly may be true in many cases, but in this particular scenario, it was the impression of a young person who had never heard a decent vinyl setup that made me question whether I was going to spend thousands to replace my digital setup. Been listening to CDs for so long that I never gave a thought to just giving them up. My guess is that I'll probably buy something after Christmas. |
akgwhiz,
I am a bit hesitant in recommending anything based on what is most like analogue because I suspect that listeners differ as to what aspect of performance they latch on to and are describing as "more like" or "different from." A lot of analogue fans really like Audio Note digital gear, so I would generally recommend that you at least get to hear one of their DAC's. Their stuff varies enormously in price, but, the fundamental sound is the same, even when comparing their cheapest DAC with their top of the line stuff. But, I say this with the caveat that you must still audition the gear.
|
Streaming wins on ease and how much music you can access with a subscription. Even if I thought vinyl was better I would want a streamer.
I also think the difference in sound quality is small nowdays. |
@akgwhiz a lot of people thinks that R2R dacs are warmer and better than more common dacs. For very expensive dacs tech does not seem to matter, they perfect whatever they use.
I think I heard a Kallista Dreamplay a few days ago, in a very good system (Apurna amp, MBL 101 speakers) and it sounded great, but I am used to digital. |
If one were to put together similar systems, both digital and analog I think they would be “different” but not necessarily better/worse. SO much relies on source... stream, cd, album, whatever and the process which they were recorded and mastered, pressed etc. that its a moot point to some degree. If we could have a first press, original master and a perfect sonic room of one song, or album, then we could perhaps determine which is “best”. Here is something to ponder... if analog, strictly as a signal type, is indeed better (I’m not arguing one way or the other) will we see a resurgence of VHS and one day have 45k VHS players? JK...
|
Really enjoying this thread as its pertinent and timely to me. Been building out and replacing old gear. Like many, I've dusted off the vinyl and discovered what I've been missing and that's not even on 5k or more of analog gear. Next up to replace is old Sony ES CDP. Can I ask don_c55 what gear he was referring to that's warmer etc than the Oppo? Is there an approach or design that brings digital closer (like Cambridge Azur interpolation, or say older Vincent tube front end CDPs) to the sound of vinyl?
As to why or what makes vinyl sound like it does (I didnt say better), I feel it owes much to what may be considered noise. I find the emptiness in the space of digital sound just makes it seem less organic to my ears. It's most apparent on the attacks and dynamics of notes.
I do/ask this so I wont be unhappy with one half of my music collection and making the choice that is being discussed. Very little overlap at this point.
|
I haven’t done a multi-source system since probably the early 80’s. I have several sources but they have their own dedicated systems. I don't buy into doing comparisons with multiple sources plugged into the same preamp. |
I always think my streaming from Qobuz sounds very good.
Then I will throw a disc in the old C.E.C belt drive transport and I think streaming was maybe not so hot after all.
Then I will spin an album on one of my tables and ok right, maybe CD playback not too great either.
Then I will thread up a tape in my Pioneer reel to reel and ... WOW.
Not sure what any of that means as no format makes me want to ditch it.
Oh then there are all my cassette tapes courtesy of three different Nakamichi decks but don't mention them as Miller gets frothy at the mouth over cassette format...... |
In much of classical and jazz original or early LPs, all analogue, can be overwhelmingly present. It may be historically arcane, but original London/Decca, RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, Blue Notes, etc. Also the best HMV/EMI can be amazing.
I have a modestly good system and every time I compare Beethoven quartets my wife always prefers the LP sound. (Here Quartetto Italiano on 60s and 70s Dutch pressed Philips.)
A couple of long stories. For me some CDs can be quite good, but a fine early LP in good shape always amazes. Klemperer’s Mahler 2 on an early EMI pressing or Dorati’s Firebird on Mercury or Ansermet’s Falla Three cornered Hat or Kertsz’s Hary Janos on London/Decca or Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue on Columbia are classic in performance and sound.
But as many have said enjoy the music as fully as you can.
|
IMO, If you want vinyl to sound better than a good digital setup (say comparing to a $7-$8k dac), you need to spend many times that in a vinyl setup to get better sound. The Oppo is not a good digital player so it doesn’t surprise me somebody preferred vinyl over the Oppo.
For almost 20 years, you had SACD that competed favorably against vinyl. Then you have DSD and now MQA, which to me sounds better than vinyl most of the time.
I’ve been into vinyl for over 40 years and most of the new music I listen to now (jazz like Fourplay, rock like dream theater, new age, and others) doesn’t come on vinyl and I really got tired listening to old music.
I sold my $14,000 vinyl setup a couple of months ago because my digital setup with a very good dac surpassed vinyl for < 1/3 the cost if you also include the phono preamp, cleaning gear, etc.. Now I’m concentrating on selling all of my vinyl albums |
Early eighties with a pair of MCIntosh 275s, JBL 250 Pyramids and a Theta tube pre, Win Strain Guage cart. CDs came out and I went for the format. No noise, how cool! When my interest waned just figured I had outgrown sitting around listening to music. Semi permanent listener fatigue. Got rid of all the equipment, kept the albums.
2013 started reading on this forum and realized I had been TRICKED! Not going to be tricked again. OP, you got it right. |
|
No serious music lover is going to choose one format over another. I have lots of LP’s that have yet to be released on CD, and lots of albums that are still available only on CD. You think I’m going to let the available format of any given recorded music determine if I will obtain and listen to it?! Superior sound quality is a bonus, not the point. Some of my favorite music is available only in far-from-great recorded sound quality. Toscanini’s Beethoven Symphonies, Glenn Gould’s everything, Hank Williams’---the Hillbilly Shakespeare---songs of longing, Howlin’ Wolf’s primal screams, Little Richard’s and Johnny Burnette’s insanely great Rock ’n Roll masterpieces, Louis Jordan’s Jump Swing band, the list is very long. You listen to your great sound, I’ll listen to my great music. |
But they were converted back to analog ... DAC in the cutting machine. This is the dirty little secret it appears no one wants to address in threads like this.
Why do LPs sound better when the recording was mastered
digitally and never converted back to analog before making the CD? It's
my understanding (which may be incorrect) that this is the way almost
all music is produced now and for the past 15-20 years.
Can't say I know many younger audiophiles who have the view of the OP, which was really not a question at all, just begging the question fan-boy vinyl. Maybe it is just old ears or old brains that prefer vinyl? I have been a tolerable musician at times in my life. I have heard very good vinyl system, and very good digital systems .... have them myself, and the best mastering is usually the one that wins for overall presentation, but when it comes to realism, a good digital system wins for me every time. Let's not forget, that almost no record, live recorded or not sounds much like what you hear live. Microphone positions, mixing, etc. are not remotely like what Joe audiophile in seat B13 is hearing. |
The only thing I can postulate is that the surface noise on LPs is masking the digital artifacts that we find most offensive and letting the beauty of the music come through. But if that is the case, it seems like it would be easy to add this kind of noise to a digital source (although it would obviously make the device measure must worse).
I suspect that even if this is a factor, it's not the only thing that makes analog front-ends sound the way they do. |
@millercarbon - that may be (likely is) true but it doesn't answer the question. Why do LPs sound better when the recording was mastered digitally and never converted back to analog before making the CD? It's my understanding (which may be incorrect) that this is the way almost all music is produced now and for the past 15-20 years.
There are, of course, exceptions, but that's not what I'm asking about. I can completely understand how an analog master will sound better transferred to LP than to CD. I absolutely loved the sound of the Sheffield Labs direct to disc recordings I had in the 70s and 80s and, despite the fact they weren't always the greatest musicians/performances, the sound was amazing. |
What I’m curious about is what makes LPs sound better to so many people, given that the vast majority of LPs are digitally mastered these days. Is it that most digital playback systems just aren’t up to the level of the gear used to produce the recordings, or is it that a good analog system adds a quality to the signal that can’t (or hasn’t yet been) replicated in the digital domain? Well first of all in my experience its not so much "so many" people as nearly all. That’s based on years of playing records and CDs and the only ones who didn’t express that its flat-out no contest were, sad to say, audiophiles. Precisely zero non-audiophiles prefer CD. Wives of audiophiles have come up and told me privately how amazed they are. As one said, "I could listen to this all night!" Which I thought was the idea. Its not the level of the gear. That’s not it. When my wife first noticed how much better records sound she didn’t even know she was listening to a record. Simply heard the music, asked what sounds so good? She was used to CD. As far as she knew it was a CD. She had no way of knowing I had dug my 30 year old Technics out of a cardboard box in the garage and hooked it up. So mull that one over. 30 years old. Patch cords. POC power cord. No shelf. No nothing. Versus brand new California Audio Labs CDP with Synergistic interconnect and power cord and sitting on BDR Cones. Should be no contest. Well, it was. But the other way. Its just not even close. Except, remember, among audiophiles. So maybe the question should be What is wrong with audiophiles? Heh. or is it that a good analog system adds a quality to the signal that can’t (or hasn’t yet been) replicated in the digital domain? We report, you decide: Jennifer Warnes, in an interview found somewhere on the web, is asked about the digital recording and mastering of Famous Blue Raincoat. Four master tapes were compared, three digital, one analog. The analog master was identical in all respects except the analog tape deck. Famous Blue Raincoat is supposedly an all-digital recording. Reading this interview I learned it is not. Warnes, the producer, and I’m forgetting if it was Cohen or who the other two were, but the four with approval all preferred the analog master. |
@twoleftears ...well if you want to get all technical about it. ;-) |
Live music is great, but I found very few venues with great sound. Carnegie Hall is surreal, but Lincoln Center should be ashamed of the sound in there. I haven't been to the Vanguard in 100 years. If you're old enough, you may remember Hoppers on 6th Ave down by NYU. Saw Getz there, Monty Alexander. It was glorious to see top-notch bands. Saw Michele Legrand at Buddys Place. But hifi is its own thing, IMO. |
