192, ad naseum
Not band width, sampling rate
Not band width, sampling rate
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
I had pay peanuts for my dac and amplifier.... Peanuts for my speakers... My audio system sound quality is equal to most vinyl system under thousands of dollars.... This debate is non sense....Because way to much relative to the price /quality involved.... The key thing in audio are the controls over the 3 embeddings of the system, vinyl or digital one.... |
Looking back, even BEFORE the Loudness Wars started, vinyl generally has higher dynamic range than its CD brethren. No bout a doubt it. You only need to look 👀 at the Dynamic Range Database to appreciate that. The other big advantage of vinyl, at least potentially, is frequency extension. I’d opine it’s extremely difficult to excavate the intricate data that is contained on CDs for a variety of reasons I’ve covered before many times. It’s a shadow of itself, or what it should be. For CDs, without a whole lot of effort, Air, Sweetness and fullness of bass are usually sub par. Even then... I exchanged few comments with the local audio designer. He also has years of experience in studio production. He claims 24/48 which is practically used as a standard for many things today provides a real dynamical range which on a format level surpasses anything a vinyl can produce. As I understand the same is not true for 16/44.1, though. The real difference happens in production/mastering. Practically anything on the digital side gets compressed when producing a master. There's an attractiveness associated with compression, too - with some music at least it may sound more attractive when compressed, especially on non hi-fi systems. Sad but true. However though compression is used commonly the level of compression is not the same on each record, of course. On another level, part of a dynamic nature is associated with reproduction device. Currently I use AD1865 based DIY NOS r2r DAC, and I can tell it made an immediate difference in dynamics of reproduction compared to few modern delta-sigma DACs, which according to their specs should not lack dynamics... |
Thanks much for the barrage of logical fallacies. Good job! 🤗 Streaming by most accounts is inferior in sound quality to plain old vanilla CD. But I’m sure you like the convenience, right? Which would make your streaming argument just another strawman argument. 😬 Also, I am not really interested in PROOF of anything, only EVIDENCE. It’s a subjective hobby. Get over it. You sound like Juror #3 in 12 Angry Men, You can’t prove it! 😡 |
Except almost all vinyl in the last several decades has been digital right up to the cutting head. Pre-digital, most analog tapes and cutting head amps/systems had bandwidth limitations too, even if the theoretical cartridge limit was higher. The dynamic range database is purely an indication of the mixing and mastering, nothing about the limits of the format. Absent any proof, your points about CDs are just conjecture, the overall robustness shown in ability to store data shown in data CDs. The real time nature of audio called for different error correction but data CDs show that putting 650mb of data on a CD (similar to amount of audio data) and recovering it is possible. Either way streaming negates that. |
Looking back, even BEFORE the Loudness Wars started, vinyl generally has higher dynamic range than its CD brethren. No bout a doubt it. You only need to look 👀 at the Dynamic Range Database to appreciate that. The other big advantage of vinyl, at least potentially, is frequency extension. I’d opine it’s extremely difficult to excavate the intricate data that is contained on CDs for a variety of reasons I’ve covered before many times. It’s a shadow of itself, or what it should be. For CDs, without a whole lot of effort, Air, Sweetness and fullness of bass are usually sub par. Even then..... |
Gallus, priceless. Zalive, I can still hear fine up to 18 kHz. I have had many issues with CDs over the years I suspect to various problems with links in the chain. It is obvious from many albums such as The Trinity Sessions that digital recording can be excellent. I suspect it is the playback process that creates the issues you complain about. Having evaluated many recordings of which I have versions in both digital and analog formats I can say without question that in many circumstances the analog version sounds nicer due to the addition of euphoric distortions. When compared to live acoustic instruments the digital version is more accurate. In many instances that sense of air and depth that many of us, myself included like is due to added distortion. Many interpret that "air" as high end. I have many remastered Hi Res recordings (downloads) that over come the lack of euphoric distortion through thrilling dynamics and more accurate imaging. Making generalizations about any format is a mistake and more likely indicates a bias on the part of that individual. There are just too many steps along the way that when not done correctly can pervert the final product in any format. Mike |
As I stated before key to getting digital right great digital design knowledge Lampizator, 2, vacuum tubes bring much more realism to the music , which too you can tune to your sonic taste. A top USB cable also is instrumental i have compared usb cables up to $1500 and the Final touch audio- Callisto is very natural and detailed and at $850 a bargain, and a good power cord. even the new Lampizator Amber 3 entry lever around $3 k with cable sound very good and vinyl at the same price imo is not as good. |
I have been at this for over 40 years and owned a Audiostore digital has come a long way , the recording has a lot to do with any playback , but apples to apples first using Vacuum tubes in digital is a big plus ,on a quality machine tubes distort with even harmonicsare more forgiving natural sounding to the ear ,that being said the Best Buy for the money and is excellent is the new Lampizator Amber 3 dac for under $3k none better , enjoy the music.com gave it 5 stars across the board for music quality, instrumental is the cable .i have tried Every brand out there under $1500. Final touch audio Callisto is by far the best in bringing realism to the party. I sold my $6k PS audio dac for the Lampizator , I also bought the $500 Triode Digital power cord it made a very nice improvement all critical components ,and synergistic research New Orange fuse. They offer a money back trial on Everything including the dac . |
Zalive, if you do not like the symbals on digital recordings just focus on the bass.It's really complex, as reproduction is (the way I see/picture it) a multiplication of influences. What's unrealistic with the cymbals or other sounds located mainly in a HF range is a result of not only digital but as well the amplification. Shushurin said a long time ago that the main problem of dominantly used amplification topologies is a total distortion which rises with the frequency, so biggest issues with distortion is expected in a HF range. Bingo, that's where digital has its worst moments too. When distortion and distortion multiplies at some point it easily gets too much and psyhcoacoustics will react: HF becomes more pronounced and easily falls out of balance. Why I'm saying this: if room acoustics (which is another issue) and amplification quality allows it, system is pretty tolerant to bit of misbehaving on the digital side as there's a headroom of quality reproduction after it and sound is easily full with nice timbre and definition accross the spectrum. So even if cymbals are not perfect it's not a big deal and it's easy to 'forget' it. However if issues multiply too much, you must do some heavy mental self-programming to forget all and enjoy :D and it's not what hi-fi should be about. Many went to analog rigs I think as they didn't succeed in setting up a nice digital based sound. And it's not impossible to set up a really nice digital front-end system with rich, full and gentle sound. It requires care with the rest of the system, it requires quality amplification, paying attention to details and...if anyhow possible, a solid nice room acoustics (setting up speakers the correct way means 'earth and sky' difference). Because IMO it's the room acoustics which can bring too much focus on a 'digital sound', and make it more relevant than in some other circumstances. In the end it's really easy to forget the fidelity imperfection as long as you are able to get the tonal balance completely right. |
of course not, you can’t hear it that way not only in digital but in LP neither:It's all correct what you say, but differences between live sound and production/mastering plus reproduction applies to all the frequency range. Yet many report it's least credible in a HF range. Obviously it's not all related to mikeing and production, there are specific additional problems related to production and reproduction of a HF range. |
Dear @tzh21y @zalive : """ I have never heard drums, cymbals and overall air sound right on any digital system................................ ........as it sounds in say an orchestra hall. """ of course not, you can’t hear it that way not only in digital but in LP neither: first because you can’t have the live music exprerience in true/real way in any room/home system and second ( between other reasons. ) becdause in a Hall your seat position maybe it’s at 20+ meters from the instrument source where the recording microphones pick-up the same information " seated " at near field: 1m-3m. Now if you listen cymbals or drums seated at nearfield position and at real SPL those cymbals/drums will crush severely your whole body not only your ears and you can’t stay listened in that stage for more than 5 minutes, maybe less time before you will deaf for the years to come. Microphones can support SPLs in excess of 130+dbs continuously. Our ears follow a " protocol ": https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/how-ear-works#top and all those is only through our ears but we have to remember that we listen through the whole human been body: hair, skin nervous ends, muscle, bones and the like. Body has a lot of resources to listen almost anything. So, both of you as amghister too needs to live the live nearfield experiences with real MUSIC at real SPLs. Btw, @geoffkait :: """ Tape is a natural medium. It breathes. """ natural medium?, maybe only for you. Breathes? certainly digital shares that characteristics in excess. So what’s your point down there?, as a fact I don’t care about your answer but I can tell you that casettes is not the issue in this thread. Btw, I still own the Nakamichi 700ZXL: https://audio-database.com/NAKAMICHI/player/700zx-e.html beautiful and great vintage machine. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Geoffkait, My old Nakamichi Dragon is in a box buried under a lot of other boxes up in the storage room right where it belongs. To compare cassettes to Hi Res digital is like comparing moonshine to Remy Martin XO. Zalive, if you do not like the symbals on digital recordings just focus on the bass. Mahgistar, exactly. So my solution to the problem is just have them both then you can decide for yourself. In my experience...it depends. |
And this I agree of wholeheartedly. It is the same with the ridiculous turntable/digital debate. Some people prefer what comes out of turntables, some prefer what comes out of DACs, and some prefer what comes out of NOS DACs, and whether what comes out is accurately portrayed or not for that listener matters exactly 0. There is no debate over whether these 3 things sound different. They do. It is much different from the debate about whether a tweak does anything at all. mahgister755 posts11-14-2019 11:13amBut for my pleasure all that is of no avail because I enjoy tremendously my "illusion"... My best to you ... |
Well one thing we can be 100% sure of is that GK will at some point make a post that is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. geoffkait18,240 posts11-14-2019 11:05amI’ve said this before, gentle readers, but I’ll say it again. By the time the signal gets out of the transport and goes to the DAC it’s TOO LATE. The damage has already been done! And it can never recover. Sadly, the Reed Solomon Error Correction Codes are NOT TOO GOOD for scattered CD laser light 💡 interference, seismic vibration interference, vibration produced by the CD transport and the self-inflicted vibration and flutter of the CD itself whilst spinning. 💿 |
Most music in the last several decades was recorded with DSD ADCs, then converted to PCM for mixing and mastering. Conversion from DSD(Delta-Sigma) to PCM and back is a mathematical process and if done with enough mathematical precision introduces no noise, losses, or distortion within the limits of useful audio, i.e. will be bit perfect to 24 bits. DSD is a different story since DSS native conversion is different than PCM and basically it's again more straightforward than delta-sigma PCM conversion. So DA converters with direct DSD DA conversion path (no conversion to PCM prior to DA) can benefit in sound since DSD conversion doesn't require output filter at all, so no ringing as well. However typical cheap DAC converts DSD to PCM, then processes DA as with ony other PCM signal. |
atdavid I dont believe that ANY reconstruction will be a total accurate simulation of the " original"... All engineering link in the audio recording chain is about trade-off and choices....But you judge too hastily and swiftly and make an implicit equation between the "holographic imaging" for some old guy educated ears, that must be only " crap" for young educated brain...But for my pleasure all that is of no avail because I enjoy tremendously my "illusion"... My best to you ... |
I’ve said this before, gentle readers, but I’ll say it again. By the time the signal gets out of the transport and goes to the DAC it’s TOO LATE. The damage has already been done! And it can never recover. Sadly, the Reed Solomon Error Correction Codes are NOT TOO GOOD for scattered CD laser light 💡 interference, seismic vibration interference, vibration produced by the CD transport and the self-inflicted vibration and flutter of the CD itself whilst spinning. 💿 |
mahjister, To say that "imaging" in headphones is all in your head, would be completely accurate. There are many imaging cues that your auditory system has for localization that simply do not exist in headphones. That makes the rest of your assertions about imaging open to "interpretation". Now, I am not saying You shouldn't like your NOS DAC. If it brings you audio nirvana great, stick with it. I will even accept your Perception that the NOS DAC creates a 3-d holographic image. What I won't accept is that the image it creates is accurate (or more accurate), or even that the sound coming out is a more accurate representation of the original. A lightly filtered NOS DAC, as are being promoted today, create sounds that were not in the recording. There is no other way to put it. They create sounds that were not in the recording. Those sounds tend to create an "airy" feel that some will interpret as "3-d holographic imaging", while others will interpret it as "crap". Frequency range of hearing will have an impact on this. mahjister, If you like it, does it matter why you like it? By the way I want to know if 3-d holographic imaging in headphones or speakers, and natural musical timbre instrument and voices rendering is also the results of very old age with this NOS dac of mine? Let me guess that your answer will be "probably" ….:) |
I am now tremendously excited to be old, I understand now very well why my S.P.S NOS dac is so good....But wait guy, be happy too, you will be old sooner than you think …. : ) By the way I want to know if 3-d holographic imaging in headphones or speakers, and natural musical timbre instrument and voices rendering is also the results of very old age with this NOS dac of mine? Let me guess that your answer will be "probably" ….:) «You can’t escape low pass filtering in a NOS DAC either, though some seem to try, and older audiophiles with poor high frequency hearing seem to tolerate them and mistake aliased noise for "air" and "ambience". » atdavid |
Again, we/you were talking DACs, and I have copied that "qualities" you have associated with "Feedback" below. None of these properties you have assigned to "Feedback" apply to a Delta-Sigma DAC. Anything that appears as feedback in a Delta-Sigma DAC is a bit-perfect, time-perfect mathematical process. It could all be calculated ahead of time and simply fed to the actual single bit DAC output (though usually 3-6 bits). A DSD signal can be technically be fed directly to a single bit DAC. You can't escape low pass filtering in a NOS DAC either, though some seem to try, and older audiophiles with poor high frequency hearing seem to tolerate them and mistake aliased noise for "air" and "ambience". A "typical" record today was recorded on digital gear, mixed and mastered on digital gear as well. That has been true for quite some time. zalive17 posts11-14-2019 3:29amWe are talking DACs here. There is no feedback on a Delta-Sigma DAC.
Cymbals on LPs made from digitally made masters don’t sound right either, if you listen critically. I can go to a hifi show, listen to many analog systems, but on a typical record I usually can’t hear an ’analog sound’ out of the analog rig, With digitally made records it’s not what’s there. |
On cassettes that are “digitally remastered” it seems that many of the sonic ills present on the CD are gone. Why is that? The cassette version is more lush, is more open sounding, more natural sounding, has more air, greater resolution and greater dynamic range. Why? It’s because the CD is more compressed and because of the limitations of CD playback I’ve been describing lo these past many months. You want some examples? OK, Kind of Blue, Country Joe and the Fish on Vanguard and AC/DC’s If You Want Blood You’ve Got It. Check it out! |
We are talking DACs here. There is no feedback on a Delta-Sigma DAC. Delta-sigma conversion is based on a feedback, it’s how it works. In fact, feedback is described even in very words ’delta-sigma’. Delta-sigma conversion You can see with any delta-sigma conversion diagram there’s a feedback associated. While those are simple conversions, you can’t escape a feedback no matter how advanced or modern it is, because...at some point you’ll have to do a delta-sigma, you know? ;) you can’t escape LPF-ing too. Even on an almost 900K system, I still feel there are compromises. For one thing, its not analog. also, I have never heard drums, cymbals and overall air sound right on any digital system. Unfortunately, sometimes you have no choice as some music is digital and was never releases in analog or (tape, record). Whether it releases on analog or digital, most music in the last several decades was digital right up to the cutting machine. Cymbals on LPs made from digitally made masters don’t sound right either, if you listen critically. I can go to a hifi show, listen to many analog systems, but on a typical record I usually can’t hear an ’analog sound’ out of the analog rig, With digitally made records it’s not what’s there. |
Dear @fleschler : For CDs Denon is more than enough. Please listen the old Gladiator motion picture soundtrack CD ( in a Denon 1600. ) against its today LP counterpart. As other gentlemans posted in this thread we don’t need to listen 4x DSD and the like to " note " the today superiority of digital alternative. I like both alternatives but for a tiny different reasons. Digital makes many things rigth but one of them is the way it handled the bass range where LPs just falls to handle with the same " true and aplomb ". R. |
mijostyn For sure you are right, most of the times we must compare and choose... But each for their own potentials, digital and analog, are only interactive elements of design in an unbreakable chain that is so mixed that choosing absolutely for one and rejecting the other is neither possible nor desirable, choosing is only possible in a particular context actualizing some possibilities for some people taste and room and system design ... This is my point...My best wishes to you... |
I already sold all my CDs except the special ones like my RT personally signed copy of Shoot Out the Lights. I downloaded them all to a hard drive and sold them to Bullmoose Records for store credit which I turned into records:) It took I think it was two months and 6 trips to Bullmoose. Now I have all that room for more Records and another 4 TB left on the hard drive for Hi Res downloads. Does life get any better? I think the JVC Direct To Disk LP are as good as LPs get not that there are not others out there particularly in the classical realm. I was never big on Telarc disks mostly because I had versions of all the stuff they did by artists I liked better. High quality recordings are no good if you don't care for the performance. The first popular digital recording was Ry Cooder's Bop Till You Drop. Great music but is is missing a little of the sparkle the best recordings have. Thanx again atdavid for clearing the air. One other comment to add is that negative feedback is not the big bad boogeyman. Done correctly it is vital for some designs and "no feedback" is not necessarily better. Mahgister, theoretically you are right but sometimes you have to make compromises and testing a rig in everyone's home is not practical so you can only say, "in this room with this system." Frankly, all of use are guessing based on our experience. In reality I can't even comprehend the question because my turntables cost a whale of a lot more than $3K and my digital playback system cost less than 1/3rd of my cheapest turntable. I'm guessing again but I would say when it comes to serious listening digital and analog get an equal share of my attention. I am also not picking out the music based on sound quality but because it is the music I want to hear at the time. If I were given the opportunity to buy an older analog recording in remastered Vinyl or Hi Res digital I would try to go for the one that I though sounded better. If I can't determine that I just get them both:) I also think it is obvious that digital is a much better value than Analog. It takes much less money to get to a near SOTA set up. |
I have a half dozen Denon digital recorded LPs. They have good sound. Denon made 2,039 digital LPs/CDs (visit Discogs.com to view) with many original recordings. Denon 1300, 1500 and 1600 CD players were very good for their time. Today, a cheap Sony Bluray player beats the pants off of them. I have a 1300 and 1500 (as well as about 30 other 1980s/1990s) CD players for sale, cheap! |
Dear @atdavid : Exist a lot of misunderstood about digital operation ( including my self where I'm way ignorant of several " things . ) about DSD nd PCM DAC operation. There are several DAC chip manufacturers s: AD, AKM, BB, SABRE and the like. My humble CDP came from Denon that use BB/TI DAC ( 32/192 ) and this goes around PCM technology but I remember that Denon was one of the few LP recording digital company in the early times. Other was Telarc and latter on Varese Saravande, Chalfont, Delos and more. Telarc used Soundstream digital PCM recorder and I own all Telarc recordings where many of them are even today very hard to beat about its quality level performance of the music information in those LP grooves. Not all Telarc are good recordings. In the case of Denon they designed and builded its own PCM digital recording machine with some " advantages " over the Soundstream standard in those old times. I know this because I own several Denon PCM LPs where as with Telarc many are first rate recordings and some others not so well . So Denon has a lot of knowledge levels not only for digital recording but how to achieve the best and more from those BB/TI DAC chips. Almost no one cares a bout Denon as a CDP manufacturer but they know in deep about and they know too what goes around analog because Denon already has deep knowledge levels manufacturing LP analog rig along analog recordings and electronics design too and Denon was side to side with CBS. So they should know something on each single side of overall analog and digital subjects by multiple first hand experiences and skills and its CDP are non-expensive units. R: |
Even on an almost 900K system, I still feel there are compromises. For one thing, its not analog. also, I have never heard drums, cymbals and overall air sound right on any digital system. Unfortunately, sometimes you have no choice as some music is digital and was never releases in analog or (tape, record). |
We are talking DACs here. There is no feedback on a Delta-Sigma DAC. Much else of what you wrote appeared incorrect as well. zalive15 posts11-12-2019 9:56a |
Hey, I just got back from an audio show. There are some digital systems out there that play in a magical way. But, way expensive. Case in point, the mbl room. They showed off their all digital flagship system. I never heared a system play music like that ever. It really was amazing and I've been into hifi for 40 years now. That been said, only the speaker system (two speakers and two subs) was arround 866,000.00 plz., each of the foue amps were 84,000 plz., and I stopt looking at the little sighns there. 😕 Yes it is out there but.... |
Interesting post Zalive... For the same reasons your speak about i personally opt for a minimal design NOS battery dac (tda 1543) and to this day i see no limitations in my audio system with it...Upgrading this 24 bucks bidded french battery dac from Ebay is excluded...The S.Q of this dac is so good that each improvement in my system were never dragged behind by it...There is way better than this dac, but way way much costlier...And I dont want to pay for the research and design of some very known dac designer... |
Why do non-OS R2R DACs sounds better (only to some).I was discussing the R2R vs delta-sigma approach of PCM DA conversion with a local knowledgeable guy who is audio designer himself (though more on the analog side, yet he has designed digital as well and has a lot of knowledge on the subject). R2R is basically a natural, straightforward approach in itself. There's no feedback in the process, unlike delta-sigma for which the feedback is necessary means of getting the DA done. And feedback is generally associated with corrections, approximations and messing with the time domain (as with the feedback you always correct with the time delay relative to the signal you're correcting with). This basically renders technical problems and various noise generated in the DA process which depends on the input sequence. Delta-sigma is from the very beginning on the path of constant improvement of the DA process...because it requires constant improvement, because of its imperfection. The thing is that constant tone and FFT tests don't reveal flaws in delta-sigma conversion. To reveal noise produced you need more complex tests which requires bit more complex test signal which will provoke what's going on. One of such signals from what I could read is a square signal, which consists of various harmonics of the base frequency. With R2R, this process is so simple that you don't have anything other than error from the resistor ladder due to resistors precision limits, which shows as HD (plus IMD which results from the THD). There's nothing more to provoke which wont show on simple tests, that's all. As for NOS vs OS, as much as I have understood, NOS is the was which is least demanding for output filtering, as it is most tolerant for less steep filtering - it's even tolerant for a non-filtered approach. And it's the steep output filters which produce pre and post ringing. Which is nothing other than a time domain oscillation audible in a HF range, rendering an unnatural effect - nothing similar happens with the sound in the nature. My opinion is that brain is unable to handle it - since it's not even remotely close to natural phenomena, brain doesn't know how to filter it out from the impression he sends to the cortex. Hearing mechanism aims to render information from the raw tonal data entering the ears (and reflecting in the ears). When unnatural tonal signal enters ears, brain cannot draw correct information from it because it's impossible - but it still attempts to do so. The end result of this attempted brain processing on unnatural signal is easily far from what was intentional when producing the record. And this is the reason why relatively small in scale time distortion such as ringing is can do much wrong to an impression. NOS design can sacrifice the strength of filtering out the ultrasonic noise from a DA reconstruction to make the pre and post ringing much lower (or non existent), in an idea that ultrasonic content, its eventual audibility plus IM byproducst in the audible range, will do less audible damage than ringing time domain distortion, from the 'viewpoint' of a human hearing mechanism. It can be either completely non-filtered approach (no ringing but more noise) or filtering with lower steepness (less ringing than steep filters like brick wall but also more ultrasonic noise, though much less than with non-filtered approach). With PCM HR signals of a higher sampling frequency, 88.2kHz or higher, there's a benefit since ultrasonic noise from DA reconstruction happens higher in the frequency (where attenuation from a less steep filter attenuation of a noise is stronger), so there's a clear benefit over a 44.1kHz signal DA. So for such signals 'mild filter' approach may benefit more than with non-filtered NOS. DSD is a different story since DSS native conversion is different than PCM and basically it's again more straightforward than delta-sigma PCM conversion. So DA converters with direct DSD DA conversion path (no conversion to PCM prior to DA) can benefit in sound since DSD conversion doesn't require output filter at all, so no ringing as well. However typical cheap DAC converts DSD to PCM, then processes DA as with ony other PCM signal. Perhaps the high frequency artifacts that modulate into the audio band mask additional information allowing the brain to concentrate on what it most wants to hear? I suspect it's about less damage, comparatively. Artifacts themselves are noise which can further increase the IMD and it can't be beneficial to the sound. But the alternative delta-sigma deals with specific additional noise, plus ringing. |
In some room be it the "same" for the experiment the vinyl will be best.... And alternatively in another room, or better said in another audio experiment with other gear and tweaks, and system, the digital will be best...It is a relative comparison, there is no ABSOLUTE answer to that... And no room by itseIf magically decide once and for all that a vinyl rig or a digital rig is the best...This is not only engineering good sense it is basic reasoning... A vinyl or a digital files are only one factor in a chain of so many factors implicated in a specific audio experience than deciding that in a particular room, be it "the same", vinyl or digital are the winner had no signification except for that particular room, particular audio system, room environment and ears.... It is like tube quality amp. versus S.S. amp. debate controversy, there is no absolute...Sansui takes 25 years to replicate exactly the sound of their best tube amplifier in solid state form and they demonstrate the fact...It is the same thing for engineering digital or vinyl contest... |
| Post removed |
I do not evade the question.... My point is about fundamentals to an audiophile experience....And give me the money + these fundamentals implemented in a room I will give you the best of digital or analog "relatively" equal in quality almost on par with each other...Because in a " particular system" the answer will be yes or no relatively to many factors, not only the gear price, but many other factors...People dont understand that the problem cannot be solved in the " same room" because "this same room" is only "a particular room" … In another room the answer will be another answer.... It is basic …:) The digital sound and the vinyl sound dont exist by itself in the blue sky of audio idealities with a value attached to them....They exist implemented and manifest to some ears in a particular environment with a particular audio system... My point is that money only cannot solve the question once and for all, at least a reasonable amount of money by itself cannot resolve the question once and for all, without taking account of the room grid, house grid, audio electrical grid and mechanical vibrations grid, etc... And the ears factor :) |
Room acoustics are extremely important but that avoids the question. Given the same room and system how much do you have to spend on digital to equal the performance of a $3K turntable. I do not know if that includes the cartridge and tonearm but say it does which means it is not a very high end table. It would be one of intermediate performance. You could probably beat it with a $2K computer and usb interface. That does not include the DAC but the turntable does not include the phono amp. |
Thanks Fleschler for the interesting link... Not only conventional room treatment is paramount for sound quality, but the treatment of the electrical grid of the house and of the room, and some others unconventional treatment are paramount too for me : Schuman generators modified, Helmholtz resonators (homemade one), and other resonators of my own design (cheap homemade but with astounding results)… Upgrading an amplifier or a dac, if you had already a good one or even speakers, before implementing these controls methods is for me throwing money without even knowing the real optimal sound of the audio system you already owns before upgrading it...Most audiophile change gear some months apart without addressing any of the fundamentals relatively cheap methods to improve in a stellar way their already very good audio system... Beside that comparing digital sound and analog one in the abstract, or in a very particular system with a particular files or vinyl in a very particular room in a very particular house is for me without any value for anyone...Except for boasting about your taste or system... Basic problems first...I apologize for my rant and wish the best to all... |
You are correct. The room acoustics and power quality are paramount to maximizing the abilities of the electronics/speakers. That's why I spent more on my room construction than on my audio equipment and it paid off. See near the bottom of Page 2 of
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-5-stages-of-making-a-bad-audio-purchase?lastpage=true&page=3 my post for my detailed room construction details |
My own system is modest but surprisingly satisfying for me in my quest of sound quality... And experience had lead me to observe that NO audio system at any price sound the same in different room, and that room treatment can make differences in a room that are way bigger that any change of gear, be it a TT or a Dac… I will not even speak of vibration controls, or electromagnetic grid treatment of the house...I read all this thread and many arguments coming from all side are somewhat astute, sound or interestingly thoughtful... But the question of the OP is very difficult to answer in one way or another, without knowing, the room where his audio system will be, nor the way his electromagnetic house grid will be addressed, and which vibration controls methods will be used or not and I dont even speak about the particular hi-level quality gear involved...The level of hi-quality of vinyl and digital gear, side by side in an ascending scale, is one factor only, the room treatment, the vibration controls, and the treatment of the electro-magnetic grid of the house 3 other fundamental factors, and they are other important factors also ( like the source materials etc)… My best to all... |
My experience with live recordings using a Tandberg 310 back in the early 1980s with chrome? Sony and TDK top cassettes had really low noise/hiss levels without Dolby. I have transferred my recordings to CD using a Alesis Masterlink and they play back similar to a well mastered LP to CD. Unfortunately, the deck was problematic and I switched to a Nakamichi ZX-7 which wasn't as low noise without Dolby. I really don't like Dolby B cassette sound. I think I'd rather hear a highest res 320 khz MP3. |
