digital vs vinyl thoughts

Good point Mapman. With my system it's about 50/50 as to which music I prefer on a format. Both are good but in different ways, there's no contraversy in my room.

"Digital is an approximation" of the analog signal"

So is a record. Different means to the same end.

Minorl, agreed on all counts.

Learsfool, and others who are interested in classical music, when and if the opportunity arises I would recommend that you find and purchase the following out-of-print CD's. They just may cause you to modify, at least a little bit, your feelings about how good the medium can sound. In fact, you just might be amazed:

Chesky CD31, Dvorak's "New World Symphony" + Wagner's "Flying Dutchman Overture" and "Siegfried Idyll," Jascha Horenstein conducting the Royal Philharmonic (recorded in 1962!)

Wilson Audio WCD-9129, Chopin's "Sonata No. 3" and other Chopin works, performed by Hyperion Knight.

The Chesky is available in both unused and used form from various sellers at Amazon, at high prices. The Wilson is very hard to find.

Interestingly, both recordings were transferred to CD from analog masters (obviously in the case of the Chesky, given the recording date; the Wilson was recorded in 1991).

Best regards,
-- Al

Thanks Almarg for the response. But you nailed it in your response. "Digital is an approximation" of the analog signal. There will be losses. Up the sampling and scan playback rates significantly, and that minimizes the losses. I just know that when I listen to an analog recoding, (recorded analog to master tape) of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue and listen to the digital recording side by side, very audible differences. And It is always a shock to me when I find music that I really love and enjoy in digital format, get use to it and then find that same music in analog format and play it and most times I hear audible differences. Again, please don't attack me. I really enjoyed the digital music also. My problem is that I refuse to accept music that doesn't sound "real". This is true for both analog or digital. I know what a real violin, cello, bass, drums, cymbals, etc. sound like and so when I hear it reproduced incorrectly, it drives me out of the room. Music that has been mastered over and over, compressed and then uncompressed, etc. loses some of the detail. The more electronics the original signal passes through before the final recording the more losses and distortions it will suffer. I'm not a big fan of electronic music, but sometimes I hear something that blows me away. But electronic music really has a detailed clear loss of dimension to me. Music that is properly miked and recorded, well, wonderful. I've worked in some sound recording rooms and let me tell you I have seen the most expensive best recording and mastering equipment being used, including the best cables, and I have also seen really crappy recording, mikes, cables, mixing boards being used also. I believe that how the music was miked and recorded and mixed is the most important aspect to the music's quality. Digital vs vinyl takes a back seat to that. Because if it isn't recorded correctly in the first place, well, nothing you do on the back end will make up for it.

no really, enjoy

"I think I feel that it is still so recording dependent."

IF both your digital and vinyl sound are good to start, no doubt how individual recordings are made is without doubt the biggest factor by far in comparing. ITs like a major league baseball season. One format may dominate depending on a lot of factors, but neither is likely to go 164-0.

No attack was intended, my apologies. I simply meant, basic engineering principals can't describe how music sounds, or what type of sound one will prefer.

The Phase Linear scandal of the early 80's was a good example. They designed and built an amp with text book measurements, but the sound was considered horrible by all that heard it.
Tim

We have some great responses. I think I feel that it is still so recording dependent. Back in my earlier days, late 60's, if I got a good recording that is what made my system sound more accurate, right, better in those ways. Equipment couldn't do that to the same extent for me. Of course I couldn't own the prevailing best at the time and what I did have was just something a couple levels better than the average person. When I think about it in the light of this discussion I think I am still there in wishing the recording was better more so than the playback source, and not as concerned about analog or digital to the same degree as the recording itself when it come to better sound but not better music. I drifted the thread a bit, sorry.

Hi Unsound - while what you say about some performers using the mike to hide things is certainly true in some situations, in many cases they defer to the "sound guys," usually with very unfortunate consequences. These guys can be VERY infuriating, often completely ignoring the comments of very widely respected artists (not to mention the comments of the people who work in the hall on a daily basis, what could we possibly know). They usually want it to sound how they want it to sound, and there is often nothing the musicians can do about it.

This is one reason why I also agree with Al's comment that the mike set up is a much bigger factor than many audiophiles realize, especially for classical music. The vast majority of "sound guys" have no formal training whatsoever - they learn from other guys they work with, who also had no formal training. There are a few schools that offer sound engineering degrees, but I have no idea what they are taught there, as there are no really good texts on the subject. Sadly, the vast majority of them are just winging it most of the time, yet are too arrogant to take suggestions from the people they are recording, who usually have a very good idea exactly what they want to sound like.

This was not really true back in the so-called "golden age" of analog recording, from the late 50's through the late 70's, say. There were great engineers at every major label. With the advent of digital recording and the myriad of possibilities it created for using many more mikes and set ups, every single engineer does things completely different, and unfortunately any idiot can becoming a recording engineer now. Many musicians, not realizing that the engineers are so little trained, just assume that the engineer knows better, and then are very disappointed in the results.

02-23-12: Marqmike
I understand digital has the theoretical potential to be better than analog as we know it. Analog might read more of the signal originally by the microphone but after that it is at the mercy of everything downstream. Digital has the POTENTIAL [emphasis added] to actually rebuild the signal to the closest identity.... Just my thoughts but I may be wrong. Tell me.

That's basically correct, IMO. The theory behind digital recording and reproduction stems from the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, according to which absolutely no relevant information whatsoever will be lost as a result of sampling if the following hypothetical (and in some cases unattainable) conditions are satisfied:

1)The sampling rate is more than twice the frequency of the highest frequency component of the signal being sampled.
2)Each sample has an infinite number of bits.
3)The waveform being sampled is infinitely long.
4)Frequency components that might be present in the signal being sampled and converted to digital that are greater than one-half of the sampling rate are filtered out of the signal prior to sampling, by means of a filter that has no side effects on the remaining frequency components.
5)The frequency components that are filtered out in no. 4, if any, are at frequencies that are too high to matter.
6)Frequency components of the reconstructed analog signal, following digital to analog conversion, that represent sampling artifacts can be filtered out without side effects on the analog signal.

Obviously all of those conditions cannot be perfectly satisfied in the real world. To the extent that they are not satisfied, digital is an approximation. Which of those conditions is the most significant limiting factor in present day digital, with most music and assuming that the hardware implementation is optimal and that the recording is well engineered (and those of course are often invalid assumptions) is speculative.

FWIW, my own feeling (which I certainly can't prove, and other opinions will often differ) is that with the redbook CD format (44.1 kHz sampling with 16 bits per sample) number 4 (the "no side effects" part) is the most significant limiting factor. Hi rez formats, especially 192 kHz sampling with 24 bits per sample, can IF WELL IMPLEMENTED (in both the recording and the playback processes) greatly improve that and several of the other factors.

Regards,
-- Al

Agreed Almarg. These are just my thoughts by reading the many posts and I am not an engineer or schooled in either of these formats outside of my home use. I understand digital has the theoretical potential to be better than analog as we know it. Analog might read more of the signal originally by the microphone but after that it is at the mercy of everything downstream. Digital has the potential to actually rebuild the signal to the closest identity. And as some have stated it might be getting pretty close. It might even be there already just some of us have experienced it yet. Just my thoughts but I may be wrong. Tell me.

Al, I couldn't agree more. As I've said before, I have yet to hear the consistent superiority of one format over the other.

Agree with Almarg.

The intent of the "sampling" with digital audio is to sample in a manner that does capture all the relevant information. How well any particular digital format like redbook CD actually accomplishes this in practice is debatable but the intent is to quantify the analog signal sufficently to capture all the relevant information present.

Sampling, or digital quantification of an analog signal in digital signal processing is apples and pranges different than sampling in statistical theory where a relatively small representative sample is used to statistically represent a population as a whole.

I think the overloading of the term "sampling" and how it is different in the context of digital signal processing theory compared to statistical theory is a cause of misunderstanding and confusion in many cases.

Thanks Almarg; I wasn't arguing that because digital was sampled it is a more persuasive argument for vinly. Sorry, if I may have giving that impression. I was stating an engineering fact that to sample a signal at a specific sampling frequency absolutely means that some of the signal will simply not be there. Analog means that all of the signal is there. Of course there are distortions and benefits and negatives to vinly. RIAA has it's own issues. It has been cleaned up and sort of perfected over the many years, but.... What I meant was that if one takes a recording session with good acoustics, mikes, etc. and recording it using both digital and analog recording equipment, (decent equipment mind you), the digital recording will inherently be missing some data because it was sampled. But, as mentioned earlier, if the recording session is strickly digital instruments, or highly compressed music, then the digital recording will be fairly accurate and the analog recording will require a DAC just to get it recorded into analog. I appologize if I stepped on toes. Didn't mean to. Just stating Engineering facts.
enjoy anyway.

Learsfool; I like what you wrote.

Thanks,

Unsound, I absolutely agreement with you. Tmsorosk, "mombo jumbo"? where is this animosity coming from? I was stating basic Electrical Engineering. Nothing else. I never said that you or anyone else wouldn't like their digital system's sound. I certainly like mine. But, before you attack me, which I can't understand why you are doing so, please re-read my post. no way on this planet is a digital signal that has been sampled over an analog signal as accurate as an analog signal. That is all I said. So, there will be some inherent data losses in digital taken from analog. Digital to digital sampling has no losses because it goes back and checks each bit with the original digital signal. This can't happen with digital sampled from analog. However, what I did say is that if you up the sampling rate and also up the playback sampling rate to match, you can get close. But never 100%. But, mombo jumbo? Sorry, it definitely isn't. it is called Engineering and the theories behind it, and that is exactly what any electrical system's designer must know before they can design and build anything. This isn't a religious battle between digital vs vinyl. So, stay calm

IMO the fact that digital is sampled is not in itself a persuasive argument in favor of vinyl. I think that most people, especially those with an understanding of sampling theory and digital signal processing, would agree that there must be SOME sample rate, and SOME finite number of bits per sample, which when implemented in well designed hardware in both the recording and playback parts of the chain, would result in digital inarguably being the better format.

Whether or not that point has been reached, or is foreseeable, or is even technologically possible, is of course debatable. But the obvious bottom line would seem to be that for each listener the proof is in the pudding (or more specifically, in the listening). Personally I enjoy both formats, and I find that the differences between formats are generally greatly overshadowed by the differences in the quality of the engineering and mic'ing of the particular recordings.

Regards,
-- Al

Learsfool, thank you for your thoughtful response. I respectfully disagree with your assessment re: analog and digital.
On the other hand , I couldn't agree more with you regarding the over amplification of music at live venues. In fact, I would go so far as to say, at many live venues any amplification is irritatingly superfluous. Unfortunately too many modern musicians use it as a crutch to hide the fact that they haven't properly developed their chops or listening skills.

"Digital always sounds less "real" for this reason"

An absolute statement that is simply not true in my experience.

Digital often sounds more real to me.

Just my opinion....

Unsound, another way to say what Minor1 is saying is that surface noise is just that - on the surface, and can be listened through to the music. Digital distortions are more seriously disruptive to the sound of the music itself than analog distortions (even though there usually are more distortions in analog). Part of this is that typical analog distortions occur at much lower frequencies than in digital, where they are at higher and therefore more annoyingly disruptive frequencies. Digital always sounds less "real" for this reason, especially if we are talking about unamplified, acoustically produced music (mainly classical and jazz). Electronically produced music does not suffer nearly so much from digital reproduction, so if you are only into rock, it's not that big a difference between the two. And far too often, excessive amplification ruins acoustic timbres anyway. One of the most frustrating aspects of my job is playing a pops show where the "sound guys" mike the hell out of everything and then set up a bunch of monitors blasting all around the stage, trying to solve the problem that no one can hear each other by making it even louder. And this occurs all the time in the very finest halls in the world. Sigh. But I digress. The other much more controversial point is that many audiophiles don't actually listen beyond the surface of the music, even if they do have good hearing. Just because one has good hearing does not necessarily mean that one actually trains and uses their ears to hear and understand music well.

Add to that some analog info can in fact be missing - a scratch on the LP for example.

I'm not bashning analog at all; please see my previous posts.

" Go to a store that has both in high end equipment and listen for yourself " who hasn't. In fact you can go to your own system if your sources are equal and listen, I have, and my digital and analog systems are very close, but different, except the analog rig cost nearly three times as much. You can quote all kinds of mumbo jumbo but what you haven't taken into account is that people all determine what they like best and what they prefer, it may not be what you prefer, but the old adage, "to each his own " still applies.

Minor1, I won't disagree with the specifics of your argument, but I believe you might have unfairly left out the fact that analog information is regularly obscured and/or distorted when it is superimposed with the typical mechanical noise artifacts that exists with analog.

There are several issues represented here and that is confusing the issues and arguments. Digital vs vinyl. good hearing vs bad or faulty hearing. Etc. lets clear up some things first before really getting into the "is digital or vinyl actuall better than the other" argument.

1. As an Electrical Engineer specializing in analog/digital design, I can tell you absolutely there is no way a digital signal is as accurate as an analog signal. The digital medium acutally takes samples from the signal and then converts that digitized signal back into an analog wave form. in and of itself, the "sampling" will specifically mean that some of the signal is lost, because it was no sampled. Now if the signal sampled is a simple sine wave, then you can extrapolate ahead and "guess" what the next piece will be with about 100% accuracy. However, with an analog musical signal, there is no way you will be 100% accurate in your extrapolations and some data will be lost. This is not to say that you can't sample the signal at such a high rate of speed that you will not be close. As a matter of fact, the higher the sample rate, the better. The problem with this is that the recording equipment may sample at such a high rate of speed, say for example 44kHz or 92kHz, but the digital to analog converter or your specific CD players itself may not be at a matched sample rate and again, you lose signal. In any case, you are still losing some data. For analog, all of the signal is there. To me, it really comes down to convienience of operation and also how much one wants to spend on digital or analog equipment to meet their goal of sound reproduction and accuracy in their homes.

I do recommend that people go and have a detailed hearing test performed to determine what their hearing is now. You will be suprised what you will find out. Second, it really comes to preferences, but if you really want to see (hear) if there are differences. Go to a really good high end store or a person's home with stupidly expensive great high end analog and digital playback equipment and get the albums and digital recording and A/B them. One more thing, and this is really important. It also depends on how the recording was done in the first place. Music that was digitally recorded and then converted to analog from the digital master to an album has the inherent flaws of digital recordings. i.e. it was sampled and reconstituted. A recording session that was recorded with analog recording equipment and then placed onto an album vs the same recording session recorded with analog equipment but then made into a cd, well that would be an interesting listening session. either way, enjoy the music please. When it sounds and feels to me as if something is wrong or missing, and I'm getting listening fatigue or shifting, then well, something is not right. Also, I do have vinyl that was poorly recorded also and sounds terrible. So, it can go either way. My CD/DAC system is wonderful and sounds pretty darn good and I can listen without fatigue, unless the recording is bad. However, my analog playback system sounds much more open, airy, detailed, etc. but, vinyl listening means that I have to clean the disc, and get up every few minutes to turn over the album. So, there are drawbacks for both playback mediums.

Go to a store that has both in high end equipment and listen for yourself.

just enjoy

Entry level always infers less than ideal.

Digital vs vinyl thoughts?

Two different means to an end.

Other than that, at this point, meh!

Inna, hate to disappoint you, but it doesn't work like that. One of the few things that will be dismissed so easily, is just that kind or arrogance.

Yes. And one person's bias and narrow minded opinion means nothing. If he would list his analog and digital components maybe we could see why he has this problem with digital. My guess is he won't.

"No person with good hearing will prefer digital as it is today. Case closed"

I do. Case closed.

I recently paid $35. for a noisy record that I played on a 1 box unit I had in the early 60's. The music evoked the same emotions now as it did back then. My point is "The music trumps everything".

I'm glad to have, and I enjoy listening to music on my "audiophile" rig. I'm also glad that I quit listening to music in the manner in which it took to get this level of audio, but the music on this noisy LP would sound good on any rig.

"I don't want to hear this garbage anymore on this forum. No person with good hearing will prefer digital as it is today. Case closed."

Bill 2.0: Do we have the right of appeal?

Just because a person works in the industry doesn't necessarily mean he can be any authority when it comes to sound quality. In fact, more orten than not it is the opposite. Good vinyl on well set-up table is very quiet. I don't want to hear this garbage anymore on this forum. No person with good hearing will prefer digital as it is today. Case closed.

i heard it at ces over 8 years ago.

i then heard another turntable, arm and cartirdige combo, which i preferred.

the "laser" turntable cost 5 figures.

That laser that read LP's was eratic, I've got the review in it here somewhere.

When asked about the demise of the LP, Rudy Van Gelder said, "Good riddance".

Never the less, I have to have something to play my records on, and the "Vinyliters" say records are best.

Back in the day, the mid-80s I think, I remember reading a report in an audio publication about a turntable that used a laser beam instead of a cartridge. It was conventinal in appearance, platter, tone arm, the usual setup, but it read vinyl LPs with a laser mounted in the tone arm. Does anyone remember this, or know what happened with that line of development? The company's name was BIC??? Seems like the next day CD players were on the shelves. I guess that killed it. Now, I would have stayed with LPs if this has come about, if for no other reason than the wonderful album Cover Art.

The problem with elcaset was that there were very few audiophiles that possesed the critical listening skills and hearing ability, required to appreciate it's superior sonics. I was one of the few. It set on the shelf, right next to my Betamax.

Avideo:
Thanks for your post. It's nice to have company.
These vinyl people are getting outta hand.

I'm recently retired after running a commercial media duplication and video editing studio for 22 years. I had access to the best commercial audio and video equipment as well as test equipment. Never really "got" the vinyl bug, even after buying a mid-level turntable and pre-amp at a cost of over $2K. Maybe the extra noise makes it "more real" for some people; but as a regular symphony goer, I NEVER hear any extra hiss or noise in a live performance. Also, nless a record was virtually unused, you could always hear some low level noise or hiss in the music; and that noise was visible on my Tektronix scope.
Sure you can remove most of that surface noise with software, but why bother when a CD of the same music has almost none of those artifacts. I am a confirmed CD and SACD listener; and will be that way for many years to come.

Rok2id, you would bring a format which nobody owned but you, into the mix.

I read about it but never heard it. For those of you who don't know what it "was", Elcaset looked like a huge cassette, and it was supposed to have the convenience of a cassette and the quality of a reel. Since they didn't last long, most people don't even remember them.

Hopefully Rok2id can fill us in on the details.

Vinyl can be good, so can digital, but neither can hold a candle to Elcaset.
IMO - IMO - IMO

My thought is vinyl sounds better then digital.

I don't think it's the vinyl, I think digital has improved. We have both noticed the same thing, but attribute different reasons for the bottom line.

Only had a TT for about 3 months now, so my experience is very limited. What seems to ring true often is music recorded before the advent of digital I seem to prefer on vinyl when listened to on both. Stuff released in the 90's can go either way depending on the mastering. New music 2000 and beyond I usually prefer the digital version when compared to the vinyl version. My gut instinct is that whatever the recording was optimized for has the edge. That being said now I have to keep both!

I'm a younger guy into audio. I run both vinyl and digital.

They do sound different but once again it depends on the system. If you have a 1K CDP vs a 5K TT, 2K cart, 2K phono stage, well then it's not even.

Also there can be so many differences in digital. Are people running SACD? Is it just a CDP or is a blue ray, cdp, dvd, and SACD machine?

To me vinyl sound warmer overall compared to digital. Digital does have more of an edge but there are CDP that will make it sound more like vinyl and then again you can have a TT that sounds more like digital.

The only thing is the vinyl upkeep. The cleaning, etc and then all the choices of carts, phono stages, etc can just make you go nuts after awhile. I think thats also why some young people like to run CD's as its just easier to use.

However I know several people younger than me even (18-23) that like vinyl and they think it sounds more real and warmer to them on just an entry level table. They like the iPod etc but think vinyl has a better SQ. I always ask how they got into it and they said they just listened to it one day and thought it sounded better. There are still young people who like to listen, and its good, its the future of the hobby IMO.

Tmsorosk,

I see why you'd think that I tried to make my digital setup sound more analog, but it's not true. I simply bought the best sounding (to me) DAC I could afford. Same as when I bought my turntable and cartridge. I hate it when people say digital piece 'sounds analog,' much in the say way I hate it when people say a solid state piece 'sounds tubelike.'

Truth is, when people talk about digital sound, they're either refering to a bad component or a recording that's either bad or was mastered in the days when engineers had no clue what they were doing when first stepping in to digital.

Good digital doesn't sound harsh, and good vinyl doesn't sound all warm and fuzzy.

I think we're both on the same page, so please don't take my post as an arguement. Absolutely no arguement intended.

Good points Kbark. But where you have tried to make your digital setup sound more like analog, I've just tried to have the best digital sound I could muster.
That being said, since both my sources have slowly and painstakingly moved up to the higher end it's amazing how similar they actually sound.

I own both and have spent roughly the same amount on both. My DAC is considered to be "analog sounding" by many - the Rega DAC.

To my ears, vinyl has a certain coolness or swagger to it that digital doesn't have. That's not to say I prefer vinyl to digital. Both have their inherent pros and cons...

People misunderstand the "perfect sound forever" line IMO. I think it was more meant as no degradation in sound quality no matter how many times you listen to it. Cassettes and vinyl albums wear out, CDs don't. CDs don't need the cleaning regimen vinyl does. Digital is far less OCD than vinyl - isolation, cart alignment, tracking force, VTA, yadda yadda yadda.

Vinyl to me sounds more organic and cohesive; more real, more natural.

But that doesn't mean any vinyl album will sound more real than every CD. There's far more consistency in CDs than in vinyl.

The at I look at it, why decide when I can have both? I view digital as everyday listening (not that that's a knock by any means), and vinyl as a special occasion.

Bringing this back to the original post, just because I feel this way doesn't mean everyone or anyone else will or should feel this way. It's all about what makes you happy and what makes you connect to the music. It's your music, system, time, and energy. I really dig what I've got and wouldn't let it go. You should feel the same way, no matter what you decide.

This comment is almost on the same subject. I've been listening to nothing but LP's all afternoon, and the music on those noisy LP's takes me to another place. The music on my perfect CD's is not as good as the music on my noisy LP's.

Of course, you need both, and I have to have both but would prefer to have one. Yeah, a lot of music is digital only.

This discussion is like MM vs MC, tube vs solid state, etc. But in this case, there is no "vs." I used to be rigidly opposed to CSs. And back in the day, things weren't so hot. They have improved immeasurably.

If this is about the music, you need both.

Orpheus10, this is a good question, about why we are debating when things are perfectly clear. I guess, to confuse them, why else?

Since I listen to a "playlist" from the computer, I don't know or care half the time whether it's vinyl or CD. Some of the LP's are on the playlist because they sound better than the CD, but that in no way is always the case. There are those who would argue that I never listen to anything other than "digital" because it's coming from the computer; but since the computer delivers all the "nuances" from the LP, anyone can call it what they like, but it's all good to me.

The more I think about it the less I know why I'm even in this debate.

I'm a music lover first and foremost so I enjoy listening to both digital and analog, the one I prefer is usually the one i'm listening to at the time. We all prefer something a little different, why can't some people see and respect that. Some seem to think that there preference is absolute. I don't know if people should even debate the subject unless they have both formats in there system and have spent equal time and money setting them up. I guess I fall into that camp, except my analog rig is several times more costly. Which is better, you judge, because for the life of me I can only say there different, I have not found one to be clearly superior.

Regards Tim

thanks for the great opinions. yes kbarkamian i have read about the acryllic platter and the speed box upgrades. and i,m sure a great phono cart match would help. your advice about the changing horses decision is exactly right. then maybe just keep improving my cd/computer audio with more/better thingees with the dollars. but to stay tru to my goal of the most bang etc with a budget system i think i have to decide to focus on one choice or the other. i.ll probably just use the pro-ject for fun now and stick with digital because i suspect a couple of thousand bucks to get the right table performance. great responses and thank you everyone. i still like to look over and see a ferrari red table sitting there and i can play a record whenever i want to and not care if it is perfect. good for my audio soul. john