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?
Dear @tzh21y : """ 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... """
First problem to answer your op question is that you are already biased and accustom to the LP experience and what you are waiting is that digital ( with the same kind of signature than analog. ) can even or outperforms analog and this just can’t happen. Digital is a great alternative to listen music and I’m a music and analog lover too but I like a lot today digital alternative.
Analog and digital are two differents audio worlds where only shares that both " produce " music/sound and that’s all. Other important issue is that digital at playback in your system and due that many kind of system developed distortions are lower than in analog playback your system will " naked " or " severe exposed ( no place to hide those weaks as in LP playback developed higer distortions. ) to the weaks links in that system and maybe you could need to make up-grades on it and this is a good thing because you will have a beter quality performance system for both digital and analog alternatives.
We have to " undersdtand " digital sound and for do that we need a decent digital rig and play with for 2-3 months in a row with out touch in that time LP/analog and after that time return to listen LP and then you will know that why can’t compare apples with oranges but after that you will like digital with out that " boring " and obviously analog.
This or a similar question appears on the forum with regular frequency. It makes for good reading every time. I hear what you are saying. I agree that the majority of digital rigs, even ones that are quite expensive, struggle to produce the magic that seems to be unique to vinyl. It is possible to get engaging, non fatiguing sound from digital. It is more a case of careful equipment selection and system matching than how much you spend. I have a Modwright Sony HAPZ 1ES that makes beautiful music that I can listen to for hours. Tube selection is critical. It takes work. At the end of the day digital won't sound like vinyl, but it can be very satisfying with the right equipment.
ring dac or ’multi-bit/r2r/ladder’ dacs. (the one dac type goes by 3 different names, overall)
that’s the starting point.
then, excellent clocks, and excellent analog and digital circuitry to support those dac types.
Then digital can be good enough to enjoy as much as analog, without having to ’work at it’ (re enjoying). But it takes some doing. Not necessarily expensive, just properly made.
I’ve got a $2-3k modern 20+ bit multi bit dac here (stock, untouched), that I have not bothered to turn on, as it cannot compete with my highly modified 25 year old 44/16 bit multibit dac.
The question is moot because it assumes analog is inherently better which it isn’t. It all depends on both sides. Having said that competitive digital is more common these days than not so even a minimal investment can take you far.
It all comes back to the recording, and the disc. Ya know, there ARE plenty of bad sounding LP’s. Besides, if an album is available on CD only, what are ya gonna do, deprive yourself of the music just because you think analog sounds better than digital? Are we sound lovers first, or music lovers?
It all depends on what sounds better means. There are obvious differences when you compare analog to digital versions of the same recording which I love to do with people. Frankly, it goes both ways. Sometimes the analog version sounds better and sometimes the digital version sounds better. I have to believe it comes down to how the recording was mastered or remastered. I have never had an instance where a CD sounds better. But with high res (96/24 or higher) digital downloads it is a toss up. Dylan's Desire sounds better in analog using the MoFi 45 RPM disc. Early Bowie stuff sounds much better in digital even though they were analog recordings. Much of the very current recordings sound better in digital form such as any of the recent Wilco discs. This is all by direct AB comparison with both versions running at the same time with the volume equalized by meter. I use an Apple Mini loaded with the Pure Music program. I love vinyl but it is just not true that it sounds better all the time. It does sound better much of the time and I have many great old records that I have no desire to get a digital copy because the analog sounds great. But, I do have some knock out digital recordings like the high res version of Tool's new disc. WOW.
mijostyn covered off the obvious issue of the masters being different.
If you are currently a "vinyl" person, then you may have an expectation of a sound that digital .... well just isn’t. The fairly high channel cross-talk of vinyl certainly creates a sound "field" that can be pleasing and I am inclined to believe that perhaps it has a benefit in untreated or poorly treated rooms, and hence offers a euphonic advantage over digital for many people. Even that slight background "hiss" can give an airyness that again many find pleasing.
There are features, typically in higher end DACs, but not exclusively, that allow you to play with filters that may allow you to tune the sound to how you like .... literally by adding imperfection, but nothing wrong if you enjoy the result. You can also pay an arm and a leg for a non oversampling DAC that will do the same thing, but without the ability to remove the imperfections when you do.
If you have a good listening space, a reasoned blend of absorption and diffusing to create a nice "environment" and you are not emotionally invested in vinyl, then you may find a good but fairly low end DAC sounds wonderful.
Keep in mind that almost everything in the last few decades was recorded and mastered in digital, and even remasterings often will be, so any "advantages" of vinyl come down to specific masterings and pleasant "flaws".
True atdavid. Nelson Pass admits to adding harmonic distortion to his units because "audiophiles just want to be happy." I prefer my bass a bit on the heavier side because I feel it makes things sound more live. If I turn my Sonos speakers on in the rest of the house it creates the effect of being in a much much larger room which with concert DVDs is a lot of fun. Accurate? What is accurate? Speakers are such defective devises, even the best ones, that there really is no accurate. In reality it is pleasing vs not pleasing and pleasing is a matter of taste. Yes, the really best systems always get big smiles because relatively few of us get to hear them under the best circumstance (not at a show). So when we do it is big wows. When it comes to evaluating these recordings a lot of issue give the impression of "better." In the case of the early Bowie recordings the remastered recordings are hugely better obviously because of the mastering. The digital versions are more dynamic and the bass is more up front. Dylan's Desire sounds better in vinyl because it is smoother and has more "air" in it. The digital version sounds harsh in contrast. As a rule vinyl versions in my system have more of that "air" effect which may be a euphoric quality of vinyl or my record playback system. Setting up a top notch vinyl playback system is not easy and it may be that the digital only group might have had a bad vinyl experience. The only excuse I can find for the vinyl only group is that they are a group of recalcitrant snobs:) (that is a joke guys. Then again my mother use to say the truth comes out in jest)
Well.... great analog with great records does have a natural warmth. but if I’m honest, 90% of records sound like crap. Compressed, surface noise, lots of distortion, blah, blah.
Lots of digital sounds like crap too, but i find that on average i’m better off with digital. And digital recordings are getting better and better. Early on there were serious errors made, and the equipment was fussy (44/16 with brick wall filters and little overhead to miss level sets by). Today with great equipment and 24/192 much more slop is allowed.
I have posted before on this topic, so I’ll be brief. I believe that 90% of the problems in ANY sound are locked into the recording/mastering process, and maybe the actual pressing with Vinyl, since there is so much opportunity to f it up.
Take some great analog recordings that coexist in CD format - 3 examples I’ll sugegst are 1-ANY Mercury Living Presence; 2-"Ella and Louis" on Verve, and 3-"Andre Previn and friends perform West Side Story" (RCA Red Seal). Superb on both CD and LP, and very analog sounding CDs. And I’m talking red book CDs. While 192/24 may have practical value in the studio, we can get great sound out of 44/16 if everything int he chain is 100%.
I love great vinyl. I have a crazy obscure turntable and arm that i put countless hours into building and setting up. Its great, except that most records are crap. The vast majority of rock records are awful. yea the recordings are bad, and the masterings by deaf engineers or tuned for AM radio, but the vinyl makes it WORSE. There are great recordings - but many are old, or very costly specialty pressings, and rarely have the great performances i want. So most of my good sounding records are used or gulp - from my parents. Way too many recrords that sounded good once, after 100 playings (Born to run anyone?) are now awful, again. OK maybe i need to invest in a new copy, but there are 100 more i also need new copies of, and to get good ones, I’m back in specialty land. Contrast that with the Mercury remastered boxed sets I just bought - they are ALL good. And used too :-)
So, in the end, while i am sympathetic, on balance I disagree. Now many say i have fairly analog-y sounding digital. My DACs ( i have a small fleet) are mostly fairly old, and only one was super high end even when new. For the record, it comes in dead last in shoot outs. But its also carefully selected, and heavily modified with home made PLLs and power supplies. Duh, i do this sort of thing, and this shoemaker’s son has shoes. prototype ugly shoes, but very comfy.
So concentrate on a) good recordings, b) less on cost more on quality. Pass on the snake oil. read, read, read! Listen, listen, listen. you’ll find stuff. or decide you just love records ad then be happy with them. I’m typically happiest when i have some new (to me) recording on, in another room, while I work, totally paying no attention to the hgih end stuff, and learning a new piece.
I listen to about as much digital as I do analogue, although I go through periods where I listen primarily to one or the other. I'm VERY happy with the PS Audio Directstream and the most recent iteration of its FPGA programmed DAC. It sounds less digital than anything else I've ever heard and is now on a par with the DCS products for far less money.
I find the complete opposite. Digital systems say under $1500 sound much better than analog - at least vinyl. But once you get over about $3K vinyl starts sounding better than equally priced digital.
there are so many levels of analog that you can't really say. i have what many consider to be the very tip top, bleeding edge of digital performance. yet, my best vinyl or tape easily surpasses it.
however; at more modest levels of analog there are cases to be made that digital can somewhat go head to head.
if you want to really understand where digital comes up short consider the limitations of digital recording, read this Stereophile interview from 1995 with the principles of Pacific Microsonics. especially read toward the bottom of the first page. you might think you know as much about music recording as these guys, but......you don't.
Unless the listeners ears are between 17 and 25 in biological age every nuance of difference even in CNO systems is impossible to convey. The actual population discussing this will talk about jitter or filter harshness or wow and flutter or dynamic range etc. and theres too many structural issues to resolve attempting to normalize two very different forms of source media. Whatever yiur setup is, if you like how one sounds you will become accustomed to the other but circle back to your original preferences. Im not familiar with anyone devoting close to equal time with analog and digital. For me, analog is the special occasion champagne while digital is the daily driver...the mixed analogy is intentional.
It all comes back to the recording, and the disc. Ya know, there ARE plenty of bad sounding LP’s. Besides, if an album is available on CD only, what are ya gonna do, deprive yourself of the music just because you think analog sounds better than digital? Are we sound lovers first, or music lovers?
Someone obsessive enough could transfer the music to RtR or vinyl.
But that article and then things claimed in it at times sounds like the technically questionable, at times arguably wrong, and certainly not universally proven or accepted claims made about MQA. Actually it gave me a total MQA deja-vu, and let’s be honest, there is certainly no agreement, between audiophiles whether MQA is better than simple 24/96 or 24/192, but based on the claims, it should be.
There is one example they use that gave me pause. They claim to hear 15-20db into the noise floor of an analog tape. Then they "pishaw" dithering claiming it is just averaging. If it averaging in the same sense as being able to hear 15-20db into the noise floor is averaging. (some of the claims they made w.r.t. sound localization w.r.t. waveform distortion are not accurate and supported by current research)
But that was 1995, and much of the problems they identified were from 1986 when they started, and that was really the infancy of digital recording.
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.
Dear itsjustme, As regards the subject at hand, I like what Raul and Mike Lavigne and a few others have said; it depends. But if "90%" of your LPs really do "sound like crap", you've got a problem that could be due to (1) buying used LPs that have been badly abused a priori, or (2) your equipment, which might include anything in the chain from the cartridge and its alignment forwards to your speakers and your listening biases. For example, if you obsess over surface noise, ticks, and pops, and the like, I could imagine that you might object to LPs per se. But most of us don't have excessive surface noise and rarely experience "ticks and pops", the favorite complaint of digiphiles. So, I'd say, for me, maybe 5% of my LPs sound bad, in which case, out they go.
IMO, you need to spend 2-3x more on analog to get better sound than good digital. It will take more than $3000 to get a really good dac just like it will take much more than $10k to get good analog. Sure, you can get a $1k rega or music hall, and you get $1k worth of sound. I had $15k as my analog setup which I sold because I like my digital MQA/DSD/hires setup much better. What does a decent cartridge cost? $1k? $3k? How about the tonearm cost: $1k? $5k? How about the turntable itself. Then you have the phono preamp. For a decent system, $10k or more isn’t out of the question. For digital, you don’t need a special server and you don’t really want 1 in your audio room. Besides the cost, analog is much more limited in source material. Most of my new music in jazz, blues, or rock, doesn’t come on vinyl and more and more are using hires and/or MQA.
I am going to throw out the proverbial Molotov cocktail in regards to actual frequency response in comparing digital to vinyl. It is never even mentioned in these threads.
LPs...gasp! Are typically in the 20 Hz- 20Hz range and to expand that range it comes down to the cartridge but how many new LPs contain frequencies up to 50 Hz? I have a feeling only the most expensive pressing do.
Those stats are never listed on Music Direct's site but if you buy an SACD or High Res recording you get those stats....as we expect to know what they are as that is the basis for our motivation to get the best sound quality possible.
I currently do not spin vinyl but are heading back soon, maybe within a year as I want to upgrade my integrated amp first, to take the plunge. I am going to NY Audio show on Friday and I look forward to hearing the difference and hopefully being blown away. I will bring a couple SACDs too.
I am a big advocate for SACDs and if you have a good to great rig you should be impressed by their audio reproduction...even in high res stereo.
I have been very please with High Res digital as well. I purchased the Yes Steve Wilson remixes and completely love them. I have the DVDA of Fragile and I listen to this newer release exclusively now. The details, bass reaponse, and nuances of these sophisticated recordings completely shine through.
In regards to SACD. The reissues of Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here is stunning! I listen to the multi-track on my HT rig and it has renewed my love for this record big time. Shine on You Crazy Diamond (Parts 6-9)will rock you house.
Gilmore just completely unleashes.
I can't wait until they do Animals.
That all being said I would love to see this discussion steered toward the possible greater technical aspects of LPs...I mean vinyl over SACDs and 96/24 high Rez.
It was painfully obvious that sub-order harmonic distortion and noises were getting in. It was the result of high-frequency things creating distortion components that were not harmonically related to the lower frequencies.
This is why you're never going to be fully satisfied with your standard digital recordings. DSD at least does a better job of moving more of the offending distortion to higher frequencies, and covering up or filtering some of this distortion. When that distortion is removed, digital can be made to surpass all analog.
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.
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)
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.
For me, It was how much would I need to spend to get my analog system to rival my digital. I had a $1000 cd player, and it took a outlay of about $2500 in turntable, tonearm, and cartridge to level the playing field. No bliss in cheap analog systems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This mirrors my perspective on the topic. Thanks, R. - David.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
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! ✌️
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.
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?
+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.
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.
