- Lemme bring my AudioEngine B-1 to the shootout and I’ll win this horse race for pennies 🤠
How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?
I have heard some very high end digital front ends and although they do sound very good, I never get the satisfaction that I do when i listen to analog regardless if its a"coloration" or whatever. I will listen to high end digital, and then I soon get bored, as if it just does not have the magic That I experience with a well set up analog system. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?
175 responses Add your response
Mike, I was not trying to attack you. Sometime we do not realized how other people hear/read our words and I was just suggesting, "it seems like, or appears" I gave an example of digital remasters of old David Bowie records that sound much better than the original analog audio in direct AB comparison with volumes matched (EXTREMELY important). I do believe this is because the original masters were poor not due to any defect or superiority of these formats. Yes, originally digital was touted as this, that and the other. We audiophiles were scratching our heads wondering with all the theory what went wrong because it did not sound so hot. Several decades later most of the problems have come to light the big one being that you have to master in a different way to suit either analog or digital playback. Done correctly without dynamic compression and with playback no lower than 96/24 I know that digital can provide state of the art results in particular with live recordings that have the inherent background noise of a live situation. Right now I am listening to the MPS re release of George Duke's Faces in Reflection. Analog all the way and wonderful. 95 dB and I feel like the band is right in front of me. Raul, I love the analogy of our brains being ADCs. They are! Atdavid, there is always a reason and searching for that reason allows us to fix problems instead of compounding them. In a nut shell some of us think Analog is inherently better and some of us think digital is inherently better. Some of us think it depends. I will place myself in the third group with the caveat that ultimately digital will prevail. It allow us to do things that are impossible in the analog domain like room control and seamless bass management. It allows us to go online and download music in a heartbeat to the most efficient form of storage, a hard drive now in 24 bit formats w/o lossy compression. If there are any detrimental sonic artifacts left they will eventually be banished and Mike L will sell his analog stuff to the Smithsonian for display with the Write Brother's Flyer and other Dinosaurs. I'm a hopeless romantic so I will hold on to mine:) |
@mikelavigne ask Andreas about 2xdsd verses 4xdsd. not relevant to this discussion. i have plenty of 4sdsd files where i have 2xdsd too. meh. i like and appreciate the difference but it’s not profound. Was the vinyl used even your own copies? You don't mention cables, so I would gather that they and the power conditioners were different, as well. 😂 This would be the same as someone dismissing you, saying that their Technics record player or reel-to-reel is comparable to yours, and the difference is too little to matter. It is clear what side of the argument you fall on, and that you have no real intent to discover otherwise, or the fallaciousness of your argument. Oh well, enjoy the music! |
mikelavigne Mike Had to go digging for the link. Long time since I was on their website. The recording of my tape. NAB EQ. Back in 2011. https://ultraanaloguerecordings.com/new/shop/musician/yun-yang-lee/beethoven-cello-sonata-no-3-in-a-... But...... I am no longer seeing a digital option for purchase of the music like there used to be. If there is not a legal, or other reason for this, I'm sure Ed would be happy to send you or someone the Digital version if requested. The CD was a DSD transfer of the tape. ********************************** From their site for the tape heads reading. 8^0 These master tape duplicates are recorded on RMG SM900 tape at +4 dB above 250 nWb/m. which equals 396 nWb/m. This will give you the most realistic dynamic range and best S/N ratio possible. The output level of your tape deck must be adjustable and needs to be calibrated to this level to realize the best playback of these tapes. I have recorded a 25 sec track of 1 kHz tone behind the leader to help you calibrate your tape machine. Use this to set the output level of your tape deck to show 0 VU. *************************************************** This was an interesting period for me going back to 2011. I can't believe all these years have gone by. 8^0 . I remember using select 15 IPS Tapes at the time to help me tune my digital and vinyl. For those interested...my digital is a personal build. It is based on a dedicated Lenovo Thinkpad Laptop, external WD going through the ARC Dac. For my vinyl setup - Verdier La Platine Granito / Custom build ET 2.5, various carts. Click on Wile E Coyote and select the system link. Let me say this. Most of my LPS (many) I do not own digital files of and do not feel (anymore) a need to acquire them on digital. Likewise most of my digital music I do not have vinyl versions of - because again, I do not feel a need. But the best way I can say it. If it starts digital and eventually goes to vinyl - it does not go back to digital. Have never gone ..... ever .....from vinyl playing to digital. I blame this phenomena on the engineers...8^0 |
ask Andreas about 2xdsd verses 4xdsd. not relevant to this discussion. i have plenty of 4sdsd files where i have 2xdsd too. meh. i like and appreciate the difference but it’s not profound. ADC for some was a Modified Korg. others i think were a Merging Technology NADAC. i did not do the needle drops myself, but it was the same tt/arm cartridge i had and same front end electronics. are there better adc’s? i would assume there are. enough difference to matter? not likely. the digital <-> analog delta i experience is not marginal. |
@mikelavigne i have 600-700 2xdsd needle drop files, and the associated Lp pressings to those needle drops. the 2xdsd files sound great. listen to them often when i’m not in the mood to change sides. Which ADC and cables were used? Wait a minute, you're going to argue against the Revox, but you didn't use quad DSD? Talk about a red herring! Also, a waveform would clearly prove your theory, or that the sources were not properly level matched, or that it is unfounded. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
I’m going to put the onus back on you. i do it every day. i have 600-700 2xdsd needle drop files, and the associated Lp pressings to those needle drops. the 2xdsd files sound great. listen to them often when i’m not in the mood to change sides. but......when i compare directly; game, set, match to the original vinyl. every time. i don’t do waveforms. i can’t reach my ’zen’ state with them. :-) i have dubbed many of my tapes, and my dubs are indistinguishable from my originals. i can tell you that a digital file copy of those dubs would not be......indistinguishable that is. but that is a Studer A-820 dubbing to another A-820. as far as RTR tape deck references, a Revox would not be quite up to the task as a reference for what tape can do. solid tape playback deck though for sure. Andreas Koch is a smart guy. has been to my room and stayed with me back in the day. i had the very first Playback Designs MPS-5, the first Playback Designs product. was my digital reference for 9 years. |
@mikelavigne please cite examples so we can all listen and comment. or come over to my room, bring your files and dac, and we can both listen and see where it goes. I’m going to put the onus back on you. Please record your analog material to digital - without clipping - so you’re using the same master as source material. Level match the two sources, and record the output from your system. Compare the waveforms. If you so choose, you can share the results here. Others have already done similar, in a listening capacity. "My initial impression of the Pinot ADC was that Andreas had accomplished a spectacular achievement: a sub-$10K Quad DSD stereo analog-to-digital converter with easy-to-use software for simple stereo transfers from analog to DSD (in .DFF format). And it sounded brilliant! Show conditions at AXPONA 2016, of course, but even allowing for that, the Pinot was clearly something very special, working in tandem with the rest of the Playback Designs Sonoma stack. In fact, Andreas not only gave us quick A/B comparisons of analog source (turntable and Brian Tucker’s Revox RTR) vs. Quad DSD output…all of which were very impressive…but he also did a single blind test just before the end of the show. Several of us who were very experienced, acute listeners, were invited into the Playback Designs room. Andreas did switching back and forth between an analog source and the output of the Pinot Quad DSD feed. We were given several opportunities to guess which was which. The three of us who were invited to do so guessed wrong. We thought that the Quad DSD feed was actually the analog source! One therefore wonders: Does the Pinot’s Quad DSD sound better than the analog source?!" "Since the Pinot ADC was only going to be there for the afternoon, we did a temporary connection to one of our LP systems so that we could do some sample Quad DSD transfers of needle drops that we would do. We used the exceptional KRONOS Pro Turntable for this task. Its output was cabled with Kubala-Sosna Elation! unbalanced cables to our standard reference, the Audionet PAM G2 Phono Amp with EPX Power Supply. That output went to the Audionet PRE G2 reference preamp, which passed the output via its balanced monitor outs to the balanced inputs of the Pinot ADC. Andreas’ notebook computer with his Sonoma Recorder software, a very compact, easy-to-use recording system, was also connected to the Pinot. This allowed us to do several needle drops and listen to them, while the notebook recorded those drops to DSD .DFF format. Those transfers turned out incredibly well. A quick listen to the results, before the Pinot had to be packed up again, indicated that the Quad DSD transfers were indistinguishable from the KRONOS playback that Andreas and I had just heard. One was the opening track from Dream with Dean on Analogue Products QRP 200 gram vinyl; then we did a sample track from the brilliant reissue of the Decca Espana with Atualfo Argenta (incredible album and transfer!), and finally three tracks from the excellent recent reissue of the MPS LP How I Really Play by Oscar Peterson. Really breathtaking, believe me." "The Pinot Quad DSD ADC arrived very recently, and I haven’t had sufficient opportunity to give it extended trials. Nevertheless, my listening sessions at AXPONA 2016 with the Pinot, as well as the brief time that I worked with Andreas to do some needle drop transfers to Quad DSD in late May, using his Sonoma Recorder software, show that the Pinot is a superb analog-to-digital converter. The results with the Sonoma Recorder app were mind-blowingly good, and reasonably easy to do, giving the real feel of LPs/tapes in Quad DSD mode. Close your eyes, and you might as well have the RTR in the same room…" https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-playback-designs-merlot-quad-dsd-dac-syrah... |
Raul, somehow you have managed to miss, or ignore, the point I was making. Moreover, you are also being very selective and “political” with your disagreements. No common sense? C’mon now, language barrier or not you must know that this will be a very provocative characterization. I will ignore it as it goes precisely to the point I was making and which seems to elude you. The bias I referred to is your bias to what can supposedly be “proven” by way of measurements and by your chosen “facts”; by your definition of “common sense”. Whether the subject of the bias is digital or not was not really the point. With respect, you need to understand more about the nature of that which you often use as a “calling card” of sorts. The quality of Art is not determined by technical matters or measurements of such. In fact, the reliance on those criteria to determine the quality of Art is antithetical to the very nature of Art and to its appreciation. Frankly, I’m not quite sure why you are arguing any of the points being made. You acknowledge that both technologies can sound good and that both can be enjoyable. I said so as well. You point out that both sound different in fundamentally different ways. Ditto. If they both sound different in fundamentally different ways then they can’t both sound equally close to the sound of live music. Right? They each have differences and each deviates from the sound of real music in different ways. For me, the best analog sounds closer in the ways that matter most to me. For you, apparently digital does. So what, precisely, is the problem? Raul, for me it is not a question of what I “like” for the sake of liking it. I like what like in recorded sound because more than fifty years around the sound of live music for hours each and every day tells me which technology, when well implemented, gets closer to that sound in the ways that matter most to me. You then suggest I ignore what my ears tell me and to instead “SEE the reality”.....right. Btw, I know it pains you have a dialogue with someone with so little common sense, but why do you really no longer want to have a dialogue about this with lowly me? Could it be that the emperor’s wardrobe is not quite as extensive as is claimed? Regards. |
I own 15 IPS tape from Ultra Analogue Recordings. I also own the CD and Digital File versions. I listened in my room with Roger Ginsley the Canadian rep for Studer and the engineer behind the recordings. The digital was right there with the Tape. Done right Digital can do it. No they did not do vinyl so I can’t say. can you tell us which specific recording this is? |
^^^^^ Anyone claiming that digital is worse than analog because of "real world dynamics" is misguided. These individuals likely enjoy the saturation of "tape" and the compression added, vs. the higher audible digital distortion from higher signal levels, during dynamic passages. With the right processing, that is no longer an issue with digital. The manufacturers just haven’t figured it out, no matter how much their gear costs ", and that is where we are now." I own 15 IPS tape from Ultra Analogue Recordings. I also own the CD and Digital File versions. I listened in my room with Roger Ginsley the Canadian rep for Studer and the engineer behind the recordings. The digital was right there with the Tape. Done right Digital can do it. No they did not do vinyl so I can’t say. Holly Cole music just as an example going by memory is the same way in my space. She is Spooky right there in the room @tzh21y zh21y All I will say. Blessed is the audiophile that finds audio nirvana on a budget, and then just gets to enjoy music once and for all. The Gear itself is no longer the focus. I am speaking of the Music Lover...... not the Audiophile, Gear Collector and or Trophy Getter. If it really is about the music...... The Music Lover hears beyond the engineering mistakes. Its about the music. The format does not matter anymore. ************************************* I am in my 50’s now and have been at this audio hobby "consciously" as a known "hobby" since I was probably 10 and had my first part time job to earn coin. All remaining "old school" audiophiles in my circle, have been around the block a few times with Audiophilia. They all recognize at this point that Audio Nirvana is achieved not by throwing money at new gear but by fine tuning one’s own space and existing gear. Once one understands for each of their unique spaces, what causes things to sound the way they are...once this is understood.... no one I know is willing anymore, to drop big bucks on another piece of gear, just for the sake of changing things out. A change in direction - i.e. ESL versus Box Speakers is another matter. |
@atdavid You only answered a very small portion of the question I asked and effectively ignored the most significant part of it.No offense mikelavigne... Blame yourself or bug @mikelavigne if your question wasn’t answered. As well, are you implying it would be impossible to build an analog limiter that soft-clips like magnetic tape and put that in the circuit before the A/D? (not that that would have been needed in the last 20 ish years with 24 bit A/D with 20+ bits effective for studio equipment) Analog consoles already soft clip. They won’t add the saturation of reel-to-reel. You are incorrect about the lack of need with 24 bit gear. There are many professional recording engineers that push the levels, and digitally clip the signal during recording. Even worshipped mastering engineer, Steve Hoffman, is guilty of digital clipping in his masters. Anyone claiming that digital is worse than analog because of "real world dynamics" is misguided. These individuals likely enjoy the saturation of "tape" and the compression added, vs. the higher audible digital distortion from higher signal levels, during dynamic passages. With the right processing, that is no longer an issue with digital. The manufacturers just haven’t figured it out, no matter how much their gear costs ", and that is where we are now." |
Dear @mikelavigne : ""
and musical connection.. """ obviously ( and not from your last post because I followed yourn posts on the digital vs analog experiences from many years . ) you have a real musical connection with digital, for me it's imposible not to have it even with humble digital hardware. My listening time goes more to LP than digital and this is more by something that could be a rutinary attitude that other thing because I enjoy a lot digital too. ASs a fact digital ( in some ways. ) help me to fine tunning my room/system and still does and as better performs my digital experiences as better performs too my analog listenin sessions. R. |
Dear @frogman : First than all I’m not biased to digital, my only compromise is with MUSIC. Of course we have to understand digital because it’s a totally different media that makes sound as other mediums as LP or tapes: all are different and sounds/performs different. I posted why playback LP experience can’t ( no matters what. ) preserve and mantain the integrity of the recorded signal. Now, is you whom could tell us why digital can’t do it . I like LP/analog and I like digital too. My main home room/system target is to stay nearer to the recording and digital puts any one nearer to the recording when LP/analog puts all of us far away from therejust: COMMON SENSE. It’s not that what your ears tells you because what your ears tells you is absolutely and totally biased and this biased is something that your brain wall/defender impedes to change it easily. Btw, have you good common sense or you need measurements on each one degradation levels on those " terribles " steps I explained in my last post? because if you need measurements on it then something wrong with you and forgeret what your ears tells you: this is not the real issue/subject and it does not matters if you are a musician/player or even a music composer. You only have to SEE the reality: what is happening down there. """ and it doesn’t need to “make sense” ... """ , this is incredible but I respect your rigth to say it. Sorry, I can’t have a true dialogue with a gentleman with low common sense because you are impliying that all those degradation steps in the playback LP process where information is totally losted, added non-recorded information and the generation of several kind of distortions/resonances and the like does not matters because even all those exist the LP hability playback process to preserve the signal integrity. It should be that way for you can post what you posted. Anyway, I think that you make your point as I posted mine but at least I gave some " facts " and you gave no single fact on what you posted other than your " ears " but your ears are not part of that common sense I posted: what you like is not the issue, got it? Emotions?, MUSIC is an ART and as an ART wake up emotions of different levels in any human been it does not matters that we listen MUSIC through the M.Lavigne system or through a humble Walkman. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
So Mike, it appears you have an obvious bias in this regard which makes it difficult for us to interpret what you have to offer in this conversation. obvious bias? really? it’s tempting to get defensive with a comment like that. i will try to stay objective here in my response. would a person who is at least as much invested in digital performance as anyone on the whole forum be somehow biased against digital? i want my digital to sound the best it can possibly sound, and have committed considerable time and assets acquiring the gear, then optimizing every aspect of it. 70% of my listening is to digital. i love it. i’ve got both files and streaming fully optimized. i’ve spent 20 years with a focus on format optimization....all formats. so it’s a big important subject to me. i have digital, vinyl and tape optimized. i enjoy all three. i can fully appreciate digital, but i call a spade a spade when it comes to direct comparisons with analog. so point out your evidence of bias here in my perceptions. i don’t see any. i think it’s wrong to confuse theoretical advantages of digital on paper to real world listening realities. but unless you have the daily opportunity to compare the tip top examples of each one i can see how the theory might cloud your reality perception. that there is bias. forget numbers and stuff. follow your ears and musical connection. |
Nah! Not in our imagination at all. Why is it that it is not good enough that some listeners find a certain truth in analog sound that eludes digital to varying degrees? We are talking about music, a key component of which is the emotion, expression, ability to engage, whatever one wants to call it. Yet, we insist on judging the effectiveness of a medium in conveying that aspect of it by using all sorts of technical criteria. A contradiction of sorts. When was it established that we understand ALL that takes place during the record/playback process; let alone understand how to measure it? I think that the fact that all of those steps that degrade “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information“ still manage convey that certain truth to some listeners highlights, more than anything, just how much the digital process itself degrades “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information” in certain specific ways. Re bias: You wrote, **** We need to understand digital **** Why? I think that this highlights your bias. Sure, I like to understand how things work, but why does one need to “understand digital” in order to appreciate what it does well and not so well? What happened to just listening and judging based on what one hears first and foremost? Obviously, both mediums can sound very good. However, there are fundamental differences between the two which may or may not be important to each listener. I know what my ears tell me and it doesn’t need to “make sense”. Regards. |
Dear @mikelavigne @david_ten @atdavid and friends: No one here is a stupid person but gentlemans with good common sense and that’s why I invite all of you to read a simple explanation : "" digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. """ just forgeret if we are biased one way or the other , I respect that statement but explain nothing on the main digital/analog issue and I don’t agree with. Look: starting at the recording cutting step and followed by the LP pressing is where starts the true degradation ( step by step ) of the LP recorded signal. All of us know and even own LP test pressings samples ( expensive ones. ) that if you compare against the " normal " LP differences are not tiny, we can aware of the degradation in the normal LP pressing. After 200 pressings of the same recording that degradation ( maybe before. ) goes in increment. On that LP pressing and before the LP playback process the LP were pressed with off-center and full of micro and macro waves in its recorded surface that makes a huge degradation to that recorded signal. Now, during playback process the LP signal has to figth first with the unstability ( short time. ) of TT speed that degrades the recorded signal, after that it has to figth with all the TT micro-vibrations/resonances in the TT that arrives not only at the surface where the LP is seated but through the arm board too. Just before we listen nothing degradation of the signal is there ( no matter what. ). Then comes the transducer job that’s the foundation of the LP playback technology ( arcaic but it’s what it’s. ). The phono cartridge must follow the LP grooves modulations ( mimic it. ) and this just is imposible to achieve for any cartridge any where: so here not only exist more signal degradation but the lost of critical signal information that we can’t recovery in any way !!!!. This cartridge must follow the modulations but each cartridge has different tracking abilities ( betweedn other things by its compliance characteristics. ) where we follow losting signal information but things does not ends here because exist a " natural " tracking error developed by the tonearm shape and this tracking error follows degrading the " soul " but the degradation goes on and on because many feedback resonances/distortions generated at different stages/sources between the TT/cartridge/tonearm: we have a feedback ( degradation-negative. ) from the TT/LP surface in between that the cartridge takes as a groove modulation adding information that just does not exist in the recorded grooves then exist feedback between the cartridge and the headshell with the same kind of added unexistent information and we have to remember too that exist the overall terrible feedback between the tonearm it self and the cartridge. What next? the cartridge signal now pass through the soldered headshell connectors that are a degradation source and follow the degradation through the tonearm internal wire. Till this moment we are listening nothing yet and the signal is just a charicature of what was recorded. We have to remember too that due to that off-centered LPs characteristic exist signal degradation and where stays all the changes through the LP surface that suffers the VTA and VTF due to those micro and macro LP surface waves??????? !!!!!! and we have to remember all those micro micro jumps by the stylus tip when tracking the groove modulations that are as a car tires on a stones road where not always is in perfect touch and even by ms. does not touch the grooves. Now the signal goes inside the phono stage and goes inside passing for input connectors and additional cable for the phono stage can work with ( obviously here exist more signal degradation and we follow losting signal and adding non-existent recorded information. ). What happen inside the phono stage?: exist to main functions on it one is to amplify the carrtridge signal and some times 10K times only in this amplifier step the signal is added of different kind of noises generated by the phono stage gain stages ( not only one stage but more than one only to amplify the signal. ) then the second function that’s that the recorded signal must pass through the inverse RIAA eq. curve that between other things no one can say coicide/mimic the RIAA eq. that comes in the recording ( here exist losted and added information. ) and after that the signal mus pass for output connectors that are soldered and that continue the terrible signal degradation. I can go on and on with what in reality happens in the LP signal but it’s useless, enough with what we read here. Now, whom of you still think that through the LP exist that " soul " or those " nuances " that we have in live MUSIC?. How any one of us could think that the whole playback process can preserve the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information? Makes sense to you? Certainly does not makes sense to me. Soul, nuances and many other adjectives we use exist in our imagination because we want it exist that way. Believe or not we are biased to, it can’t be in other way because we " born " with LP not with digital ( I already explained this. ). Remember that I’m not talking of what we like but what is happening in reality not what we like or are accustomed to. Btw, all of us listen ( through our ears-/brain. ) through an ADC. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONs, R. |
Mike, thank you for taking the time to respond, and for others keeping this civil. I was on a Facebook forum yesterday, and someone whose opinion I value, and is certainly accomplished in this field, said something that I have believed for a while, but have not tried to prove .... that you have to voice your system (room treatment + speaker placement) for vinyl or digital due due to inherent differences ... i.e. cross-talk. As tzh21y said, perhaps it is just what we are used to? In other areas of perception, like light, our preferences change as you change intensity, and we know that in sound, the Fletcher-Munson curves define how intensity impacts our perception. Perhaps inherent dynamic range limitations in vinyl coupled with aforementioned dynamic compression creating the ideal results for our interpretation of music and dynamic range from a perception standpoint, not a measurement standpoint? Back to the thread, best answer as pointed out ... is no answer, as it is deeply personal it appears. |
+1 mikelavigne. Agree word for word, and NOT because I am “conditioned” or “biased” to the sound of vinyl. **** digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. **** Real world dynamics. Exactly. Of course, if one thinks that this refers only to the ability to play more loudly or even to make wider dynamic contrasts from softer to louder then that may explain the insistence by some that digital betters or even matches analog in this regard. It is the way that any medium does it, what happens along the way from softer to louder and from louder to softer that matters. A key element of “real world dynamics” is the sense of vibrancy and life that live music has and which projects the “soul” of a performance. More than tonal issues it is what determines the level of involvement with the music that the listener will experience. Good analog seems to make better musical sense of the difference between ppp and pp as well as the difference between ff and fff. A good musical performance is greatly about the constant very subtle dynamic changes that a musician projects to create a great rhythmic feel. Not just in a great 4/4 Rock groove, but also in how a great string section in gets from musical point A to point B while playing a very soft and slow phrase with great musical direction; the “soul”. Not saying that good digital cannot do well in this regard, that would be silly, only that in my experience good analog does it better; often, much better. I’ll let others duke it out as far as the technical reasons why this may be so or why it “can’t be”. Frankly, I don’t care that much. I do care about what my “bias” to the sound of live music tells me. |
Focusing on the "spend" is not going to get you very far, even if you increase your "spend" amount. May I suggest looking at this differently... that is: investing the time to learn. I'm sure you can attest to a lengthy learning curve and time spent developing experience and expertise with respect to your analog system. You are where you are with your analog rig for a reason... a number of reasons. Good (great) digital requires (calls for) the same. How much do I need to spend for a digital front end to better my 7K analog front end. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable? |
Mike, I have not yet spent nearly as much on hi fi equipment as you have but my system is no slouch either. Neither the physical reality or my own listening experience matches yours. The best your ever going to get from a record is 70 db. Most are down around 60 db if they have not been damaged. With 24 bit digital 110 db is attainable limited by digital max. But, as with everything we listen to it all depends on the mastering. Digital is going to sound very flat if as usual today a ridiculous amount of dynamic compression is used. Everything we listen to has been mastered, engineered. The older records were mastered assuming the limitations of vinyl. Dynamic compression was used to keep the music above the noise floor and below the maximum reasonably attainable tracking capability of phonograph cartridges giving at best 70 db of dynamic range. If I use that same master on any current full resolution digital format I will get the same 70 db dynamic range. If I make a master for digital use only with a dynamic range of 90 db I can get considerably more dynamic range out of any of the high res digital formats. If I used this master on vinyl the stylus would fly out of the groove. These new masters and remasters are starting to invade the market thus hi res digital can easily attain the dynamic range of high speed reel to reel. I can hear and demonstrate this easily with my system using the right software which means I can do it with yours. Which means you can do it also. I can also fool people into believing a version of a recording is more dynamic in AB comparison just by tweaking the volume 2 db. In the end it all comes down to the master and then the limitations of the format and although many analog to vinyl recordings do sound better than their digital counterparts, analog media are crippled when it comes down to dynamic range even next to lowly 16/44.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording So Mike, it appears you have an obvious bias in this regard which makes it difficult for us to interpret what you have to offer in this conversation. Sincerely, Mike |
tzh21y OP I am not an anti digital guy. The truth is that I have never heard any digital that involves me with the music. Everytime I hear a good digital system, I am at first impressed, but after a half hour or so, I want to listen to records >>>>Bingo! With two simple inexpensive tricks almost any CD player can beat the most expensive analog rig. Scout’s honor! ✌️ |
I am not an anti digital guy. The truth is that I have never heard any digital that involves me with the music. Everytime I hear a good digital system, I am at first impressed, but after a half hour or so, I want to listen to records. I just recently listened to a 20K esoteric digital setup that does in fact sound great, but I would rather listen to my vinyl rig. Maybe it is colorations that I just gotten used to over decades. I know that digital will never be analog and vice versa but I am asking the question, How much do I need to spend for a digital front end to better my 7K analog front end. Heck, even a 3K turntable with a decent MM cartridge. I am being totally serious here. Out of everyone in my audiophile circle, only 2 listen do serious critical listening to digital. I am thinking it would probably cost at least 30K. Thats a lot of scratch for digital. |
Geez...Is anyone going to address the OP’s simple question?early in the thread, this was addressed. it’s basically unanswerable since there are so many levels of analog. maybe if you identify a particular price point of analog you can come up with an approximation of what it takes to compete with digital. but there is no general answer other than there is no answer. and at the top it’s not possible for digital to compete for any amount of money. and that is where we are now. you need to come early, then pay attention. :-) there will be a test later. |
Geez...Is anyone going to address the OP's simple question? I'm betting the OP is aware it's a subjective topic. He just wants suggestions on the latest, reasonably priced gear to consider? I was hoping to read experiences, not members pontificate. As expected, the thread devolves into a pissing contest. Digital vs analog vs digital vs analog vs digital vs analog vs digital vs analog!!!! |
I had a 1k TT and a 1K DAC and the TT always won. I moved up to a 6k TT and 6K DAC. The TT usually won. Now with a 35k DAC and 35K TT setup and I think the DAC finally has the edge but only on things that had good digital copies (many 60s recordings still better on vinyl). So the answer is 35k. I recommend the dCS Rossini. |
i wish i had license to I.D. this person i’m referring to; but i do not. we can leave it at that and move on. if you were sitting here next to me in my room i would tell you. understand that the designer of my music server, easily the top server product on the market today, is hugely invested in absolutely top digital performance. he came into my room expecting digital to compete, and left bewildered. and went and looked for answers. hence the reference to that Stereophile article. i also referred him to a mastering engineer i know who has mastered all of the Reference Recordings titles for the last 20 years for additional data points on the subject. your perspective of digital having technical superiority is unfortunately not correct. it might have greater frequency range but that is not significant. bandwidth and dynamic range is where it’s at. 1/2" tape kills any digital format. direct to disc vinyl is exceptional. 45rpm vinyl is awesome. respectfully; the only thing wrong is the lack of listening to analog recordings. i've had 20 year veteran pro audio guys in my room doing recordings and hearing top level vinyl for the first time. they could not believe that their ADC's could not capture and play back what my vinyl was outputting. just listen. i have 17 terabytes of digital files including 50+ dxd (352/24) and 50+ dsd256 albums on my server. the best digital can deliver. they do not approach what my analog can do. but i do enjoy listening to them. i am very invested in the best possible digital and it’s a big part of my listening as that is where new music is. love streaming especially Quboz. my overall listening approach is to try and listen to any recording in it’s native format. tape, vinyl or digital format. even redbook 16/44 can be fantastic if that was the native recording format. i love dsd recordings, but if they were PCM sourced prefer that format. of my 8000+ Lp’s likely 400--500 or so have a digital component to them in one form or another. certainly these are typically less ’robust’ in their sonics. less headroom for sure. but it’s not a one size fits all situation. there are many fine sounding digitally sourced Lp’s. but they don’t compete in the top realm of vinyl, know that great recordings can transcend any format. and during digital’s infancy there were many cases where there were digital recordings mixed and mastered to tape. pressing plants could not use digital masters initially. OTOH i have over 7000 completely 100% analog Lp’s......and -150- 2-reel 1/4" and 1/2" tape albums. the case of how vinyl compares directly is made like a punch in the nose in my system. it is not anything subtle. more like ’you got to be fu**ing kidding’. |
Mike, The problem with many of these "high fidelity techies", is that they are long on notoriety, but often weak on being a real "techie". I don't know this person, so I hope that is not the case, but it seems to occur a lot in consumer audiophilia. Anyone who claims that 24/192 with remotely modern studio A/D and playback does not have, at least the potential for superior dynamics, I do have to question. I don't claim to be a music or recording engineer (because quite obviously I am not), but I do have a fair amount of practical (and some not so much) experience with the technical end of this. What seems near impossible to find is an exact equal mastering of vinyl and high res digital, and not with crushed dynamics on the digital. They all seem to have not so subtle differences. Your system ... saw it on Facebook, is very impressive! I would love to hear it. Not to challenge you, but do you believe that vinyl/analog has more headroom to work with even when the vinyl was recorded and mixed via digital means? I think that is an important question to answer. I have a fair amount of experience with the digitization and reconstruction of audio, even more in some fields (mainly software radio) where we really push the limits of the A/D and D/A performance and they really do live up to their specifications. So, something must be wrong, somewhere in the chain, if audiophiles like you believe that vinyl has more dynamic range and I am not convinced it is the reasons that HDCD or MQA gave, but I don't discount there is something. Cheers! |
what brought that 1995 Stereophile article to my attention recently was a private exchange i happened to be on the periphery of, between the designer of my Music Server, and an un-named iconic high fidelity techie we all would know. my Server Designer was lamenting that visiting my room he heard tape and vinyl do dynamics far beyond what any digital could do. and i have plenty of digital firepower in my room both hardware and files. his question was why the difference? now. right now. November 2019. not 1995. the high fidelity techie referred to that article and said nothing has really changed. and there is no push (or market demand) to change things. digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. i personally don’t claim any intimate knowledge of what is possible digitally except for what my ears tell me from the highest rez files i have. i’m not in the studio. but those Pacific Microsonics guys were, and this un-named person certainly is too. my room was built for big reproduced music. and my system has been assembled to do it without limit. it is easy to compare formats and when you do that this stuff we are discussing is just so evident and obvious. and the bigger the music the more it is clear. analog just has so much more headroom to work with. horsepower! |
Having been into vinyl for most of my life, including it's predecessor, shellac and later abominations like poly-styrene, when the CD hit the market, it was the best thing I've ever heard. When prepared correctly, almost nothing can beat it. Spending $3.k on a turntable is a waste of money. Especially today when vinyl records are being manufactured with worn-out equipment operated by inexperienced people. There are, however, old-timers still around who know how to cut a record properly, but that is often where the expertise stops. Due to inexperience and worn equipment, pressings are often lacking. With not being done in a "clean room", records are still going to have pops, ticks and other imperfections. Off-center pressings abound not by just equipment or experience issues, but by poor set-up and poor quality control. The tone arm is not supposed to move side-to-side as is plays a record. Most people can't tell the difference, in a blind test, between good equipment and cheap-o equipment. The more you spend on something doesn't always pencil out. The differences are so minute that any advantages may not be worth the extra expenditures. The most important thing is that you are happy with what you get. A good rule of thumb is that if looks cheap-o, it probably is. If it seems too good to be true, it usually is. Don't go overboard, there are advantages to both digital and analog. |
+1 @rauliruegas Digital was not the medium for us because just did not exist yet. So, our ears/brain are 100% ( like it or not. ) biased to the analog signature sound in home audio systems. I’m too. This mirrors my perspective on the topic. Thanks, R. - David. |
| Post removed |
👍👍👍👍 mijostyn1,294 posts11-06-2019 9:28amThe normal background noise on vinyl excluding the rare scratch or loud pop I find not to be objectionable at. It is dithering your brain and in some ways, believe it or not makes the music more realistic. When have you been to a concert with no background noise? Never. People talking coughing, shuffling around, chairs squeaking and the -ss behind you that has to whistle after every song. Vinyl is actually quiet in comparison!The quietness of digital is actually spooky, sterile. You know you are listening to an artificial recreation because there is no noise. Is this one of the reasons I prefer live recordings? Maybe. There is more behind this than the technical aspects and this issue is highly multi-factorial. Gross characterizations do not work and anyone making them has a hidden bias. |
Dear friends: @tzh21y is an anti-digital gentleman and I know not only the way he writes the OP but because in other threads for him exist only analog. Almost all of us here including M.Lavigne are accustomed to analog because is this medium where we startted to listen MUSIC in our home systems and before that through the radio. Digital was not the medium for us because just did not exist yet. So, our ears/brain are 100% ( like it or not. ) biased to the analog signature sound in home audio systems. I’m too. That " signature " is for me the key for the main controversies in between digital and analog where the ones that prefer analog just can’t avoid from their brain that " signature " and this " signature " in on control of what we are listening and if something like digital comes wioth diferent " signature " well does not like us as the analog experiences. @mikelavigne as me and almost all of us are biased to that kind of " signature " and even if we listen through PCM or DSD top resolution digital sound our reaction is that can’t outperforms analog even if in reality it beats analog but our " brain " is a wall/defender of that analog " signature ". If things be the other way around and I mean that we were accustomed to digital " signature " and suddenly the new medium been analog our brain will do the same: functioning as a wall/defender of that digital " signature ". No matters what it’s very dificult to listen analog vs digital with out beeen biased to one or the other medium. Both mediums are different but in some ways are alike too. I don’t own the M.Lavigne system level ( I wish I own it. ) but I can tell any one thet my system has not only good but excellent resolution with very very low distortion levels of every kind where I can appreciated the truly high quality performance of digital medium that in many ways beats analog. But the issue is not if digital is better or not the real issue is that today we can ejoy digital better than ever. Digital technology is growing up almost every single day ( computers, cell phones, DAC’s and ADC’s, etc, etc. ) when analog stopped to grow up many years ago and can’t really grow up with better quality because LP overall technology just achieved the limits of that technology, easy as that. In the other side several of the problems of digitakl as jitter, aliasing, discontinuty and the like are already solved and improving about. Like it or not digital will be improved and seems to me that the the digital end is far away from here and today it’s only starting its mature period so the best is forthcoming and the best we can do is to accept things as in reality are. At the end we are " here " because we want to listen and have the best MUSIC experiences through our room/system with analog and with digital mediums. Some one in this thread ask for someone that technically could post why LP is better and no one says: I can do it and no one did it because that’s not posible. The LP playback process " road " is higly tortuose against digital playback process. Here the biggest differences in between both mediums. I know: " it’s that my " ears " say analog is superior . """ that’s a normal answer due our accustomed ears/brain " signature ". Not easy to forget that " signature " and this is the problem because almost always that we are listening to digital instead to compare it against live MUSIC event seated at near field position we are comparing vs the LP " signature " ! ! ! , this for me is each one of us mistake. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
As you suggest Mike Stereophile did this interview back in 1995. I remember listening to the very first Sony CD player at a friend's shop in Akron, Ohio through Krell electronics and Magnapans. It sounded pretty poor. But, cassettes sounded a lot worse and people flocked to them because they were not vinyl and you could play them in your car. CDs were even more convenient and had the potential to outperform cassettes, were not vinyl and they would soon be playable in car audio systems. It was obvious they were going to take off whether or not audiophiles like them. After all we are a very small proportion of the market. Now it is MP3 downloads. It would be three years before Accuphase would make a CD player I could listen to. I suspect it had a fair amount of harmonic distortion added in because it was very tube like. Still, the best records had better dynamic range. Then came the volume wars (dynamic compression) which IMHO ruined the sound of most popular CDs. Fast forward to High Res digital 96 or 192/24 PCM and recordings that were mastered for this and you have a whole different ball game. Even old analog recordings that were remastered in digital can sound fabulous. In many instances it is only because the original master was poorly engineered. But, better is better. The normal background noise on vinyl excluding the rare scratch or loud pop I find not to be objectionable at. It is dithering your brain and in some ways, believe it or not makes the music more realistic. When have you been to a concert with no background noise? Never. People talking coughing, shuffling around, chairs squeaking and the -ss behind you that has to whistle after every song. Vinyl is actually quiet in comparison! The quietness of digital is actually spooky, sterile. You know you are listening to an artificial recreation because there is no noise. Is this one of the reasons I prefer live recordings? Maybe. There is more behind this than the technical aspects and this issue is highly multi-factorial. Gross characterizations do not work and anyone making them has a hidden bias. |
You only answered a very small portion of the question I asked and effectively ignored the most significant part of it. As well, are you implying it would be impossible to build an analog limiter that soft-clips like magnetic tape and put that in the circuit before the A/D? (not that that would have been needed in the last 20 ish years with 24 bit A/D with 20+ bits effective for studio equipment)
|
@atdavid Serious question for everyone. How do you reconcile claiming that vinyl is technically better ... not euphonically better, but technically better, when the vast majority of recordings made in the last 2 decades have been recorded on digital? Even where the original is analog, many remasters have been remastered via digitization? At some level, Vinyl is just another "DAC" for many records. Digital recording is non-destructive and far easier to use. That said, there are still a select group of studios and artists that still record using reel-to-reels. Reel-to-reels have a soft clipping nature, as it reaches 0. Those analog recordings keep part of their characteristic sound, even if they're converted to digital and processed digitally. This is why some mixing and mastering engineers will transfer their mixes/masters to reel-to-reel, before - or as - their final format. |
