Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"
Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"
I am sharing this for those with an interest. I no longer have vinyl, but I find the issues involved in the debates to be interesting. This piece raises interesting issues and relates them to philosophy, which I know is not everyone's bag. So, you've been warned. I think the philosophical ideas here are pretty well explained -- this is not a journal article. I'm not advocating these ideas, and am not staked in the issues -- so I won't be debating things here. But it's fodder for anyone with an interest, I think. So, discuss away!
Back in the early cd days, I was anxious to replace my vinyl with the perfect sound forever, zero surface noise discs that were promised. Too anxious, as I dumped well over a thousand albums (some that have never come out on cd), and my turntable (SME tonearm, Dynavector Moving Coil cartridge) before much of what I needed to replace my records even existed in cd form. And I was quite pissed to find out how unnatural acoustic piano sounded on just about any digital sources - almost as if the waveforms had been rounded off.
So now years later, with an Oppo and SACDs, I have the piano sounds I was after 30 years ago with zero surface noise...at $30-70 a disc. Is this progress? Or are the "new" vinyl releases better quality than what we got for $3.99 at Korvettes back in 1976?
“Playing a record is like looking through a window. You're not really there. You're on the other side of a wall, looking through glass. Layers and layers of glass. Some of them clear, some colored, some optically perfect, some wavy as hell. The scene is bent and blurred and colored and far from perfect. But its perfectly clear to your brain. To your brain this is no different than looking at a fish in the stream. Yes the water is wavy, murky, muddy, maybe even. But for all that there is no doubt in your mind, not the slightest shred of doubt, that there is a nice tasty trout in the stream.
When we push play on a CD we get a video on a screen. And the picture we see, it went through all the exact same layers of distortions as the record. Only now in addition to and on top of all that its been converted to video. No matter how sharp the contrast, how vivid the colors, there is never a doubt in the mind, not the slightest shred of a doubt, that we are looking at a video monitor. There is no trout. Maybe never was. Could be really good AI. Who knows?”
Sometimes it’s ok to have things be what they are at an emotional level, not an empirical level. As others have said, sound is a physical medium. Hearing is a physical thing. So there is a natural metaphysical symmetry in thinking that a physical phenomenon sounds better in a physical medium. So vinyl (and reels) fit that value system better. If you think that is all mumble-jumble, than you can accept that digital is king. But to me, analogue is equivalent to painting with a brush. Digital is equivalent to spray painting. And (apologies to truly talented graffiti artists), I don’t know anyone that would pay millions for a spray painted painting....
As others have said, sound is a physical medium. Hearing is a physical thing. So there is a natural metaphysical symmetry in thinking that a physical phenomenon sounds better in a physical medium. So vinyl (and reels) fit that value system better.
A dac is a physical medium like a turntable....
In a digital file booklet you also have photos, musical analysis and more text than behind the cardbooard pocket of a vinyl......Even film sometimes in the files associated with the music...The files booklet can even be printed....Or only read on a "material" computer screen instead of a cardboard...
Except then for the " sense of touch" fetichism, digital and vinyl are about sound and music....
Guess where is the sound/music coupled with you Ears/brain?
Not in the files nor in the vinyl at all; 😊 the living experience is in the coupling of the speakers/room/brain...The electronic component being a dac or a turntable coupled to amplifier are necessary but the sound phenomena is not there at all...The sound waves dance in the unified room/ ears/brain phenomenon...
Change the acoustical settings of your room, and immediately the sound of your digital apparatus, if it was a relatively good one, will become "analog" like....
Ok seriously you say it is the "groove" in the vinyl that are the crux matter about analog, is not it?
But Fourier analysis can transform digital in analog and vice versa...
That sound too artificial? Relax your ears/brain do the same Fourier conversion....
The problem is bad digital, not digital; and the second problem is the acoustical settings of most living room, with an irregular geometry (many empty corners for example), a complex topology (doors and many windows) and a complex varied acoustical content(furniture, wood,concrete, etc) In a bad room(most audiophile ordinary room are bad, it is easy to see it in the virtual section photos) vinyl will suffer less than digital, it is evident, because of the difficulty to retrieve the refine higher frequencies from the too much reflective materials in a normal living room (glass, concrete, wood) a dac will sound worse...
With a simple good dac and a room treatment and controls, there is not much difference between the 2 vinyl or digital... And if there is one you can decrease this difference by controls in the mechanical and electrical embeddings dimensions, not only with the acoustical dimension...
It is my experience...
Vinyl is good, digital ca be also very good.... It is a free choice really motivated by habits and negligence in acoustical settings of room or motivated by practicality and frugality
.... But the most important factors in S.Q. has nothing to do with vinyl/ digital choices, they are the embeddings controls or how do we installed an audio system in a house and room....Vinyl and digital wars are only fetichism and strategic marketting and long habits...
So, digital isn't a perfect representation of a sinewave. A sinewave isn't a perfect representation of a sound wave either but since its the only way to translate audio we'll leave that alone. Digital audio has quantization errors. It's just a fact. Nothing will change that fact. When you take an analog sinewave and collapse it into a binary structure of 1s and 0s, what results is an approximation of the original signal. We use dithering to smooth over the quantization errors, but they're still errors. Can these tiny, minute steps cause a fundamental degradation of our ability to enjoy the sound? I don't know. Possibly. There is the theory that humans enjoy hi-res music because we're more sensitive to time domain errors than frequency errors, so just because the frequency curve in a 20-20kHz window is reproduced perfectly our brains will nevertheless pick up on these tiny timing errors introduced by digital conversion. It could be this is why vinyl records, loaded with distortion and noise, can still sound better. The fact is NO one knows why hi-res sounds better. NO one knows why vinyl can sound better. The time domain theory is just that -- a theory. It might end up being validated. Is it related to the studies out of Japan using MRI to show listeners exposed to high-frequency music experiencing different brain activity? Is there some kind of non-linearity or unknown high-frequency reception process in our ear-brain system? The listeners are picking something up and doing something with it. I really don't think anyone knows the answers to these questions yet.
The fact is NO one knows why hi-res sounds better. NO one knows why vinyl can sound better. The time domain theory is just that -- a theory.
Interesting post....The science behind conversion is complex...
But when we listen the music in our room, my point is there is many more powerful factors to improve de sound than the switching of digital to vinyl or vice versa...Anyway the 2 have their own limitations and flaws....
Vibrations and resonance controls, decreasing the noise floor not only of the audio system but of our house, the passive materials treatment and active non electronical control of the acoustic of the room, all these are way more powerful change in S.Q. than the comparison between a very good dac and a very good turntable....
But it seems people are fixate on the less important choices that divide us instead of the more important factors that can create a better high fi experience with ANy audio system, digital or vinyl, and that can unite us...
A last word: for me the apex of audio experience is natural instrumental timbre perception and imaging... A turntable can make it and a dac can make it.... But the 2 will make it even greater if the mechanical,electrical, and acoustical embeddings dimension of the audio system is treated and controlled.... All the rest is relative to taste or habit at best, or useless at worst.... :)
Mahgister, it’s not about a DAC or a turntable. The physical medium I am referring to are the groves of a record which generate vibrations or the orientation of iron particles (in a reel). Those are a medium where music exists physically. Digital is not. Frankly, the best sounding music I have are 15 ips 1/4” two tracks recorded off the master tapes. I have Vanessa Fernandez’s before the levy breaks in 2nd generation R2R, hirez digital, and vinyl. With good reveling speakers, the differences are noticeable. It’s about presence. It’s less an issue of hearing it, it’s an issue of feeling it. The way the sound waves surround you
Similar argument to which make of car, mode of travel, etc is best. I never bought a CD player so have limited experience in comparing the two formats on a decent system in ideal circumstances. My digital listening has been with mp3 players and home music recording for which it is ideal. If you want to be more involved with the music that you are listening to, then vinyl is the logical format. However an interesting section of this well written article mentioned that before analogue recording and playback, live music was the lone source. Surely this would represent the pinnacle of involvement and excellence. So has the reproductive quality aspect given way along the timeline to convenience?!
"My aim is (1) to highlight what is absent in the aesthetic experience of listening to music through digital formats and equipment, and (2) to refute the idea that vinyl enthusiasts are mere snobs using outdated technology just for the sake of being cool."
In the end he fails to prove his premise and struggles to highlight either of his declared aims. Neither of which really needed highlighting.
@millercarbon, rvpiano,
"There is no trout. Maybe never was."
Yes that captures it.
As biologically constructed interpretation machines we rely upon sensation, stimulation, memory, imagination and emotion.
As long as we remain human there doesn’t seem to be any way of getting away from that, does there?
Some might prefer impressionism some like photo realism.
@mahgister,
"Timbre perception was and is the key to listening experiments about audio system and his not only speakers dependent but room dependent...."
Could not agree more.
I’ve felt that way about audio for decades.
@whart ,
"I don’t have the energy or inclination to argue analog v digital at this point, though I was a dyed-in-the-wool analog guy for many years. Now, I’m agnostic. A recording sounds "right" to me or it doesn’t."
Me too. I think it has to be a case by case comparison. There’s far too many examples of one being better than the other.
What happens on the production side of music often has very little relation to what happens on the interpretation side of music.
Cue to half remembered recollections of drunken parties where you thought the music was the best thing you ever heard...
@mahgister I enjoyed your post about how the many factors combine to incline us one way or another, depending on variables that are not usually taken into account -- especially the room. And, we can agree that a good comparison should try to exclude using magic words like "physical" (or "analog" or "natural") and it should also avoid the "fetishism" of touch. (Though some might argue that since music is a total experience, why should we exclude any other senses participating in the experience?)
Yet despite all that you said, I’d only point out there are people here who have tried both formats *in their rooms, keeping variables constant and avoiding the prejudices of magic words and fetishes* -- and yet they still testify to a difference. As much as you want to direct us to the many factors which are in common and to create "peace" between the "camps," there is a difference here which is not borne of obstinacy or anger, but of listening experiences. Personally, I have not had these experiences -- but that’s because I don’t have a turntable now.
@madavid0 Thank you for your excellent post. I think you push toward at least a plausible answer as to what the difference is. In some of the better videos by P.S. Audio’s Paul McGowan (and other folks), I’ve hear discussions about timing that make this seem to be a key element. And you’re right that we don’t have very firm answers to these questions, as far as I understand it.
@stringreen I like your analogy with shaving. It’s a good point about whether "the process" can ever really be separated into "pure listening" and the "overall experience of listening," which is broader. When I listen critically, am I listening in the same way as when I just sink into the music -- as Steve Guttenberg continually urges us to do in his videos? (cf. Is a job interview like any other conversation?)
@lastperfectdaymusic I recommend to everyone here a short piece by former Librarian of Congress entitled "Making Experience Repeatable," the second half deals with the conversion of music as a unique and unrepeatable experience into one which could be switched on at will. See: https://erenow.net/modern/the-democratic-experience/42.php
better for who? fine if you like to play with record speed , Cantaleavers, record cleaners , moving coil , nice tube head amp , a interconnect, not drinking at a 6 ft. distance from the TT . crazy vibrations. 10 other things i forgot about . 5 years ago and today is totally different
Yet despite all that you said, I’d only point out there are people here who have tried both formats *in their rooms, keeping variables constant and avoiding the prejudices of magic words and fetishes* -- and yet they still testify to a difference. As much as you want to direct us to the many factors which are in common and to create "peace" between the "camps," there is a difference here which is not borne of obstinacy or anger, but of listening experiences. Personally, I have not had these experiences -- but that’s because I don’t have a turntable now
Thanks for your generous and kind words first...
I never negate that there can be "ultimately" a winner,vinyl, for some very few people,able to afford the comparison in the same optimal rightfully embed conditions with some masters files and mastervinyls... A trustful et honest audiophile like Mike Lavigne is an example.... He said that vinyl is better and i trust him...
My point of view is not about to negate vinyl positive points at all....
But for most of us with ordinary vinyl and files, the difference is not what seems it would been in the Mike Lavigne room or any very high acoustically designed room...
In ordinary room there is plenty of people who vouch for cd or digital losless files with reason also...
My point is if your digital sound harsh, not organic, with a veil, dont look for a come back to vinyl, change for a better dac and treat and implement some controls on the mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings...
When this is done, if there subsist a superiority of a medium against another, it takes exceptional vinyl and master files to hear a clear winner and a room like Mark Lavigne....Otherwise each one has his superiotity and negatives...
Then ordinary mortals must embed rightfully their system and vinyl and digital will be relatively on par with each other with their own advantages and inconvenience to pound over but not a complete superiority in the S.Q. ....
Thanks for your kindness and i wish you an iron health this year.... 🙃😊
I understand for sure.... I remind you because you surely has observed it already, that english is by no means my spoken language.... I never speak it, i dont travel and only read.... Then when i explain myself in Shakespeare idiom, the artful tools of rethorical expression, like ellipse, litote, humor, or condensed rethorical statement of any kind are not in my box tools...
Then i apologize completely for my failure and lack of self control also...
Benjamin would say, "One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced."
Benjamin would say, "One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced."
Very good.... Benjamin knows very well that the participation to the cosmos through our Soul/body was the root of the prophetical corrective action of the art on the society.... This therapeutical sacred fonction was dying with the complete technologisation of the world....
How to spare the function of the artist in the A. I. world?
The truth is any technological progress that is too rapid in relation to social evolution and metabolic capacity will de destructive... In particular in our immature social order now on the planet...Because the technological progress will be seize for more power by a small very small minority... Art become a commodity in this world and the artist is only a piece on the vast mechanical social conditioning...
The difference between A.I. and human intelligence is that A. I. dominate the universe by transforming it like a material to his own criteria and exigences...A.I. dont understand and cannot nor want to understand the cosmos but transform it for his own sake, like in Star Trek the impossible to stop Borg civilization...
Human intelligence is connected to the root of all living intelligence, from bacteria to angelic realms, that make all across the universe only ONE intelligence that try to understand and respect each other without reducing a living consciousness to be a "thing" or a "material" for other work....
Digital is not unhuman tough and vinyl more human...It is music that play the first and last part, and music need sound but is not reducible to sound...Nor to his sound vehicle...
Some music created works transport more human and divine content than others....Then it is not so much the format vehicle which is destructive but the orientation of the creativity of the artist and of the society in this future totalitarian technocracy ...
Nowadays the artist has always this choice: reconnecting the soul to the cosmos or creating a sterile virtual hedonistic bubble... the artist duty is more to reconnect man to the living cosmos than to only the old tradition... The stake is eternity and no more only the survival of any tradition....It is the last hours, we are all saved together or all lost ... We wait like Benjamin to the messiah but a totally new one and a different one in each of us....In this multiplicity only we will be able to be one....
Too much words.... I sense the despair of some....
cd318 comes closest to capturing my own feelings on the subject. As with all things human subjectivity is colored by the environment, socialization, motivation and training. In many instances something is better because we believe it to be. In many instances what we prefer is significantly inferior by objective means. Certainly there is a large group on either side of this equation. I say they are both right. It is not my place to force my religion on others. I listen to what I prefer. Everyone should do the same.
mapman18,215 posts12-23-2020 12:36pmVinyl
is a 100 year plus old flawed technology. People spend a fortune trying
to address the flaws and still can never win because all records have
flaws it’s just a matter of how many and how much.
Wow! i just listen this comparison between highly costly amplifiers on youtube....
And even through my audio system i can listen to the unnatural timbre of the voices and instruments and the choice of details over the flowing musicality...I know for sure that this audio system will be very much fatiguing for me....Amazing...The same files playing on my system dont sound so unnatural....
Give it to me and with my embeddings methods and controls i will set it correctly.... For now it is horrible for the price paid...What i dont understand is that the organizer seems very happy with that....🙄 I think that they dont listen music they look for details....Perhaps their youtube recorded files is not good? if i compared with the normal youtube file of Dire Straits it is way better....Then the room where it is recorded for their amp comparison is acoustically non treated one or badly treated indeed ( i hear too much echoing )... The ordinary Dire Straits on youtube is not fatiguing at all ... I think that they use a dac with digital files, in these case a turntable would do better it seems or my low cost NOS dac... 😁
One of the amp is a Mephisto : 55,000 us dollars....
My own system value is 500 hundred dollars....😊
Spare your money all of you, dont upgrade, and instead embed what you already own rightfully...Be it vinyl or digital... 😎
I am not so surprized, there exist also a video with one million dollars system on youtube that did not sound natural even through my own audio system....
My audio system is musical, natural more warm than dry, with plenty of details but any timbre is natural sounding and incarnated and not cartoonishly detailed with no flesh on the skeleton...My imaging and soundstage fill all my room... This system in youtube also for sure but the timbre of voices and instument is unnatural...Detailed and thin....Fatiguing to say the least....
Understand me right tough: all the element of these audio systems are vastly superior to mine....BUT they are not rightfully embed at all and that is easy to hear...It seems even some professional dont always know how to embed their system...
Give me the system i will make it sing in a room where i will set an acoustical treatment and acoustical controls, and also my own recipe for mechanical and electrical grid controls at very low cost...
It is very satisfying to be happy with what we have even after a comparison....
I know that some will accuse me of arrogance and pretense....I hesitate to make this post.... I make it nevermind the critic because we must all learn that it is not money that buy audiophile experience but rightful embeddings controls...
Anyway, in the worst case my "illusions" if my experience is an illusion, spare me much money indeed....😷🤓🤗
@mahgister -- you’re telling us about your system again. Can we confine conversations a bit to the topic? It really does get long...
Sorry you dont get my point right, but i dont speak " explicity" about my components, except saying that they are low cost, but about the impact a bad embeddings can have on a very costly system...
Perhaps you dont like my "long" posts but it was never about my system but about the way a bad acoustical room can impact a digital or analog system....I spoke about the way to embed ANY system NOT about my particular system ... Do you understand that?
The adress in my post was about an interesting youtube example not about my "ordinary" but well embed system...
I think these forums are often just a window for lonely older men to try to connect with others.....
what do you think most forums are? a free advertisement for electronic parts by ordinary dude that boast their amplifier? Or is it an audio engineer only forum here?
No it is a place where anybody can explain freely his experience and ideas mainly about audio for sure... Age has nothing to do with that but for sure i am old and i have time for music ....
My posts said something about exactly why for most people this debate analog/digital has no meaning.... Answer to that.... And dont give me lesson in elliptical rhetoric or about old age...
@mahgister Interesting you heard pretty much on this video what I did.
Thanks i am happy that someone had really read my post....
Yes i think that in this case the room treatment is catastrophic and the dac and the audio system is not well embedded if this is probably a very good dac like it seems...
Any room treatment must be adressed in a small room (unlike in a theater or vast concert hall where reflective surface and synchonization of waves dont play the same game) to the specific audio system and to the geometry and topology and content of the room...I learn myself for the last 2 years how to acoustically embed my own room and it is not a " formula" you can sell like some affirm it to be....It is different for each room....
Applying a computer formula in a small room will not do it...
Ears are Ears and we must wait for acoustical A.I. that is not sold for the moment... 😁
In this case i think a turntable would had been better, because in general analog is more robust to attack from a too cold and harsh room, not because digital is harsh in itself, but because a natural musical instrumental timbre digitalization apparatus is not a so well spread product anyway, and the way to embed a dac is not understood at all...like for the audio system embeddings anyway...Then even good dac need help....
But analog or digital anyway need badly mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings...
Thanks for your confirmation of my impression...
Like i already said this audio system in youtube is vastly superior to mine ( a low cost one) BUT is badly embedded and it is easy to listen to this fact....
I just fell in love with vynil two or three yrs ago. Really before I am ok and very happy with digital, still do ,I bought 2 sacd players 5 yrs ago, Yamaha 1000S And marantz 8005 sacd , I still like digital,thinking, Iam happy to have my music hall 5.2 tt, with goldring cart, and built in phono pre on my preamp. That’s it. Until I decided to visit friends who has good vynil set up, then I heard and felt something on vynil that I have never experienced, the rest is history, I fell in love with vynil, I bought good turntable and good phono pre.if I have time to listen I prefer vynil, if Iam doing something digital is perfect.
I think you know as I do mahgister how silly youtube videos are like this. The echo in the original track is intentional, it is part of the recording, though I believe there is a bit of evidence of additional room reflections where the microphone is.
I do find these tests funny though. I am pretty certain there was a minor volume difference between the two amps. You don't use a sound meter to level match for amplifiers. A $10 multimeter would be orders of magnitude more accurate with a sine wave. The simple act of people being in a different place in the room can have more impact in the recording than changing the amp or speakers will.
I think you know as I do mahgister how silly youtube videos are like this. The echo in the original track is intentional, it is part of the recording, though I believe there is a bit of evidence of additional room reflections where the microphone is.
There is other youtube files of this same song without this "echoing".... Perfectly listenable, contrary to some other youtube file of this same song, and of this youtube contest of 2 amplifier with an "echoing"...
For sure youtube file are not very good one, especially to judge amplifier or anything through your own audio system...
But some defect persist to any medium: harsh echoing, with unnatural timbre if they are there will be there for listening through retransmission to any good audio system... If i listen to it then hearing UNNATURAL sounds through my relatively "warm" and non fatiguing system then the fault cannot be my system....
Like i said my post dont want to be an attack toward a clearly very good and superior audio system than mine, but to his catastrophic acoustical embedding and probably a sensitive dac that would need like most, a careful mechanical and electrical embedding.... The possibility is also that the dac is not so good in the circonstance, i dont know what the dac is, but i suppose it is a very good one, then the room acoustic is the first culprit, and then the audio system all embeddings ....
I dont think that what explain this "echoing" and unnatural instrument timbre is the microphone location only....Acoustical treatment are very powerful and the lack of them in some room is cataclysmic soundwise...And you cannot save a bad room with mic location only.....I dont underestimate acoustic after 2 years experiments in my own room with a complete transformation of my modest system to a new higher rung on the scale S.Q. with NO comparison between BEFORE and AFTER...Most people which dont experience this first hand cannot believe it...Acoustician knows tough....
I know then first hand by my experiments that ALL audio system at ANY price could be transformed completely by rightful embeddings.... For me it is the reason why no reviews of audio product are nothing more than anecdotes....Objective measured reviews tough are only speaking for good or bad design and not of the sound quality for real ears then cannot be complete without listenings,,,, Only the statistical numbers of positive or/and negative comments or reviews are of any significance...
I wish you Happy New Year and the more health God can give to you....
I have both. I use a Lynx Hilo to digitize and to playback. It does 24/192kHz. I can say without a doubt that the analogue version of a recording sounds just a little bit better than the digital version, on my system. You may get different results. I went digital in the late 80s with DAT. A convenient format but only good at the time for 16/48kHz. It sounded pretty good with well recorded material. Then, 20 years later I decided I wanted to hear my records again. I went back to my Denon DP60L and Grace F-9e, using the phono stage of my C-J PV6. Wow, just with that setup there was an improvement. (I was using a Sony 75ES CD player.) Now I've invested in more high end equipment and with the Hilo find it still easier to listen to vinyl. It just sounds better. Then you have the naysayers who say that records are too noisey with pops and crackle. A good US cleaning with the proper bath water, a good rinsing and vacuum dry. I can't tell it's not live.
This is so far down the food chain it may never be read but..a man much wiser than I explained this phenomenon in this way. Think of a tape recorded piece of music as a loaf of bread. Digital conversion cut that loaf into many slices. Crumbs fall away and no matter how hard you try to reassemble that loaf of bread there will still be missing pieces. Vinyl uses the whole loaf (tape), it may be manipulated and colored and enhanced in many ways, but in the end the loaf is still complete, all the bytes are there to enjoy.
But the pieces that fall off are now microscopic one and no more too big, dac technology has known an evolution,...
Then what is the difference between 2 load of bread, one that have lost no pieces, and one that have lost one thousand microscopic pieces that amount if we count them all to only a little flake or 2 ? And the pieces that fall off fall in the right time window , not at all instant out of any window so to speak....It is no more perceptible or way less at worst...
For the eyes no difference, the two bread are golden and crispy, for the ears samething...
happy new year....
Understand me right tough, i dont negate that the human ears can listen the differences, but i know for sure counting all the other important factors, including the many different possible dac, and the many ways to embed an audio system , this difference is not what Turntable afficionado say it is like stick like a bear nose sticking to honey... With the right dac and the right embeddings there is a difference that is like some flake add to a delicious bread.... No more.... And a badly embed turntable will sound worst than a good and rigthly embedded dac anyway...
I must be blessed. I have tried cleaning records every which way and it never makes a spec of difference. What good is a loaf of bread when it is squished flat. Digital playback is potentially far more accurate in relaying an accurate waveform with far less distortion than any analog path. The important word here is potential. Most frequently with popular music the dynamic compression is crippling. But, the naysayers here need to listen to an album remastered for digital in 24/96 or higher. Something like Led Zeppelin One or Leon Russel's blue album. Nothing is missing in a digital file. You do not jump from one way point to another when you make a trip. You drive from one way point to another. A digital file is a bunch of way points that tell the DAC where to drive. The DAC is driving through the signal just like your stylus drives through a record. Any error is added as noise. Far less noise than any analog process can come even remotely close to. It is only a matter of how the music is presented.
I must be blessed. I have tried cleaning records every which way and it never makes a spec of difference.
It makes a difference when the turntable and the dac are not on the same level of quality but also if the room and house embeddings are not rightly installed in relation with the 2....
Vinyl can provide a very rewording playback, and there is a good chance that a combination of that particular mastering process and the colorations introduced by vinyl will provide a superior (for you) listening experience on a given track.
However, it is purely wrong to continue the belief that it provides a more accurate playback than modern digital. It does not.
However, it is purely wrong to continue the belief that it provides a more accurate playback than modern digital. It does not.
I think that digital can be on par with vinyl, but you are too harsh... Accurate is one thing, naturalness of timbre another, and the naturalness of timbre implies more factors than only accuracy of dac....
The complexity of this problem cannot be reduced to harsh choices...For example you cannot recreate the recording room atmosphere even with a good dac or turntable in a bad listening room and in a house with a too high noise floor and with too much vibrations and resonance in the different components....
I think like you that digital is not under vinyl at all nowadays, thanks to this technology... But analog cannot be dismiss by the back of the hand... For most ordinary listener, the complex intricacies of the factors imbricated makes any dogmatic affirmation only that: dogmatic...
Musical sound is not reducible to electronic designed numbers, we must add many other factors in the equation....
An audio system exist in a room and in a house for some ears for example, not mainly on his blueprint measured design table....
A working audio system must be designed before playing, but it must be embedded somewhere in some way to be judged by some ears....
The embeddings ways ( mechanical electrical and acoustical)can transform ANY system to another level completely or limiting it in a destructive way.... This is the reason why reviews are anecdotal stuff only except treated statistically, and it is also the reason why judging audio system only by the design measured numbers is not enough at all...
«Reality is not the iceberg peak»-Anonymus
«Reality is not even the complete iceberg with the ocean»-Myself
« Reality is everything, specially what is not "real"»-Groucho Marx
No, actually it does not. It either sounds like what was picked by the microphone or it does not. High res digital (most digital now), plays back a more accurate representation of what was captured. That is just the way it is. You may not like it, but assigning terms like "naturalness of timbre" that are factually untrue does not change that.
mahgister3,873 posts12-29-2020 1:29pmI
think that digital can be on par with vinyl, but you are too harsh...
Accurate is one thing, naturalness of timbre another, and the
naturalness of timbre implies more factors than only accuracy of dac....
Let go of this notion that "analogue" has a complete signal. It does not. As soon as you add noise, you no longer have the signal. You have a signal and noise, and since you have no way to remove that noise and leaving only the signal, then no, there is nothing complete about what is on a record, analog tape, or similar.
b_limo1,929 posts12-29-2020 2:29pmIts pretty simple isn’t it? A record or analogue signal has a complete soundwave whereas digital is bits of that soundwave, no?
What is COMPLETE is the analog OR digital signals + their increased or decreased recording noise floor which are listened to in a room with his own increased or decreased noise floor....
GENERIC digital or analog signals must be listen to in SPECIFIC environment and they are recorded in SPECIFIC environment too...
No theoretic analysis can replace ears experience...
Then is digital superior to analog? No...
Is Analog superior to digital ? No...
They are two different, interesting, competiting medium then that can be chosen by our preference in a particular house/room/system embeddings...
Or they can be chosen by a recording company and this company is not made of fool that negate engineering ; TACET " tubes only" recording methods for example... I like their way to deliver timbre naturalness, especially of chord instrument like violins...It is possible to hear the difference even with a dac like i have in my system....
Most music is immersed now in a complex analog/digital chain.... Then.....
assigning terms like "naturalness of timbre" that are factually untrue does not change that.
The timbre of an instrument will be recorded in a specific studio room with his peculiarities...And he will be listen to in a specific audiophile room...
The recreation of this event , the timbre of a piano, will be relative not only to the mic but also the the geometry, and to the topology and content of the recording studio...
Digital or analog will transport in their own way these signals, but their recreation in my room will be better or worst, not only because i use digital or analog, nevermind my choices,but because the acoustical embeddings of my room, and the machanical embeddings of my system, and the electrical noise floor of my house will give me better or worst conditions for the CONCRETE experience of listening the piano timbre...
I dont think that there is an absolute superiority between analog or digital, only advantages or inconveniences for the listening Room/brain....
I maybe wrong, but i dont understand how.... 😁
Appendix: Timbre is complex phenomenon not reducible to frequencies only....
Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration
Then when a Company like TACET use analog tubes only recording method it is because the analog recording method will be able to seize or grasp in a DIFFERENT way some aspect of the complex phenomena of timbre... They dont say that analog is absolutely better, they say it is absolutely different to record timbre with or without analog method...
By the way "timbre" is not only a sums of frequencies it is an event in a SPECIFIC room not reducible to a mix of frequencies...Timbre is accurate not only by exact summation of the reproduced frequencies but also with some timing of mutiple events in the recording room... Then using analog recording method or digital one will make some aspect easier to be recorded and other aspect not so easier...."Real-time-timing-events" (point three and five mainly in the wiki definition of timbre) are not recreated in the same way with analog or digital recordings methods, because each one will analyze the timing events by focusing on different characteristics in the complex timbre phenomena.... NONE are superior......I repeat NONE are superior...
My point is the same than you....Digital is in no way inferior.... But i add....Analog is in no way inferior too....
No, it will create distortions and coloring that many find pleasing. No more. No less. It also gives them a niche that lets them charge more.
Then when a Company like TACET use analog tubes only recording
method it is because the analog recording method will be able to seize
or grasp in a DIFFERENT way some aspect of the complex phenomena of
timbre... They dont say that analog is absolutely better, they say it is
absolutely different to record timbre with or without analog method...
"Real-time-timing-events" (point three and five mainly in the wiki
definition of timbre) are not recreated in the same way with analog or
digital recordings methods, because each one will analyze the timing
events by focusing on different characteristics in the complex timbre
phenomena.... NONE are superior......I repeat NONE are superior...
This is just a flight of fancy and no attachment to reality. No wow and flutter, no tape stretch, no print through, absolutely perfect timing accuracy .... there is in no way anything superior about current analog audio recording technology that can compete with digital on any aspect. Analog recording methods and playback will mush the timing information. Digital will capture and recreate it perfectly.
In your dogmatic rant you conflate 2 different concepts of timing, the timing of bits flows, and the acoustical timing events linked to the definition of "musical timbre"...
And i never ever said that analog is superior to digital, you confuse me with some others audiophiles you seems to despise...
I am an audiophile myself but i dont think that analog/vinyl is superior at all...
I think that analog method for recording studio or for rendition in our room are different with their own advantages compared to digital... They are on par with different results...
Timbre is first an acoustical phenomena between room/instrument/ and ears, NOT at all an information process phenomena, being it analog or digital....
And some aspects of the complex acoustical timing events that are linked to the formation of timbre are well served on some aspect by digital recording method and differently by analog recording method, and also in the acoustic of the listening room, by a dac or a turntable and also by a tube or by a S.S. amplifier... It is not a question of subjective prefered colors taste, it is a question about the way the acoustical timing of the recording room making the timbre of the instrument will be listen more or less rightly so in the acoustical conditions of the listening room...
The timbre of an instrument is always evaluated by human ears in a specific acoustical room, never can be measured .... Then i dont speak about "COLORS" i speak about "TIMBRE" and timbre is not a set of complex phenomena reducible to frequencies ONLY.... This is why we speak about complex timing and the points number 3 and 5 in the wiki definition of timbre...
No, I most certain don’t conflate the two. Digital perfectly preserves timing in the analog time domain with well sub nanosecond accuracy, down even into 10's of picoseconds. Analog recording formats by virtue of their significant mechanical flaws, introduce huge variations in timing.
In your dogmatic rant you conflate 2 different concepts of timing, the timing of bits flows, and the acoustical timing events linked to the definition of "musical timbre"...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
