Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

RE***I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example....****

Learsfool, I have to say...if you still hear a HUGE difference between well recorded music and your stereo, you should take a second look at your system.

Kind regards,

.

RE***And yes, I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example, or you truly think they are negligible and unimportant, then I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

You shouldn't pity me, you should say, wow, he must have a well put together system!

Also, i'm not intimidated by your credentials as to why you think you can hear better than me. And i'm quite confident you THINK can hear BETTER than me... OR ...that you can LISTEN better than i can. Hogwash.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist(or a professional musician(i've heard this a thousand times)) to know what a unamplified....harmonica, acoustic guitar, trumpet, trombone or violin sound like...played alone in a quiet room. It's immediately self apparent when you are.

The argument goes...i'm a professional musician, i'm a recording engineer, i go to live concerts twice a week THEREFORE because you don't have the same degree of exposure you can't know what real instruments sound like, therefore your experience must be rejected. Hogwash.

The sound of the above name instruments heard alone/live in a quiet room is easily discernible and their attributes/characteristics are self evident.

For the last 6 years i have been vigorously LISTENING and comparing systems, both my own and other audiophiles systems[this in itself has been a kind of training], previous to that i have lived in this world for many more decades and have heard and have played instruments all my life so if you would be so kind, please do not tell me i don't know how to listen or that your ear is better than mine cause you're a pro!

While i attest that the differences between the live event of the nirvana unplugged concert and the norah jones track i mentioned in a previous post and my stereo playback are negligible i also now attest, that for past 5 years i have ALMOST never or extremely rarely have heard a system sound like the actual event. Therefore, i DO have the ear/discernment to reject stereo reproduction that does not mimic or encapsulate the actual event.

If i didn't, how could i say all those years and to almost all the systems i have heard, own included..."this sounds fake"..."this parameter is wrong or that parameter is wrong?"

And...i can attest to the fact that 95 percent of my home playback does not mimic reality, nor have 99 percent of the systems i have heard. One other system i did hear it mimic reality on a couple tracks too. It was the tape of the 'star wars' theme.

I am a timbre and dynamics 'freak'. That is, timbre...(an instruments inherent signature pertaining to ...what the materials utilized in its construction and how those materials vibrate/sound as they push air when played)are my highest audiophile value with dynamics as it's close handmaiden.

So, if the timbres during my stereo playback or anybodies stereo's playback are off, to my mind, the music...in this respect loses its ability to fool you into thinking you are listening to a live instrument.

Also, you can go and hear and be exposed to many system's which you think are the best that is possible but still take away the experience that it did not imitate the live event, regardless of whether the system was ultra extreme expensive.

Dollars spent ...doesn't always translate to..."this is the best possible".

There are alot of expensive systems that have something amiss but tired audiophiles don't know where to go from there or don't know how to pinpoint the problem, except to throw more money at the problem.

What i'm trying to say is...while it is possible these great systems you have been exposed to had limited synergy between the components so that there was some parameter that could not fool you into thinking this sounds like live instruments therefore you believe it impossible that it can be so. I really want to labour this point since, i have been sorely disappointed by hifi dealers rooms and other audiophiles systems, over and over and over. I'm pretty picky and fussy and i keep it to myself but some of these hifi dealers rooms sound poor.

Secondly,

RE***I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

No, i'm not.

I'm getting alot of what they are trying to communicate with my system, ESPECIALLY on the specific musical pieces i've named already several times ....because my system can mimic the fabric that makes music music.

RE***I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

Do you know what i'd get out of seeing patti smith live unplugged? Do you know what i'd get hearing patti smith on my stereo? Will i 'get' the deep emotion she is trying to communicate because i hear her voice live and her guitar live?

No i wont, cause i'm not interested in patti smith. So, i don't get much emotion from patti recorded OR live. Which is to say...that music is MORE than whether or not you hear timbres reproduced accurately or not. I guess what i'm saying is that there are other things, other than just dynamics and correct timbres that evoke a emotional response in music.

for example...the words, the arrangements, how loud, or how soft something is played, how fast or slow, how a person uses their voice, how it all sounds when its happening together...other things too i'm sure.

I love music and timbres produced by a stereo that mimicks reality on SOME DAYS is just a luxury, not a necessity.

ON SOME DAYS...i'm just as content listening to my favorite music on my 12 dollar getto blaster that plays, radio, tape and cd all in one unit!!! as much as i would on my 40,000 dollar system because music is more than just timbre and dynamic response.

Emotions can be evoked by a memory we attach to a song, by the words, all kinds of things. Timbre is not the single channel alone to emotional connection. As i said patti smith 'LIVE!'even with the genuine clash of a real cymbal is just ho hum for me i won't get what she is trying to convey SIMPLY BECAUSE it is live.

So, if someone thinks 100 percent accurate timbre and dynamics is a necessary prerequisite to connecting emotionally and that 55.2 percent correct timbre is insufficient to convey musical emotion then i would have to disagree with them. There is so much more going on between a piece of music and the listener irregardless of whether not it is faithfully reproduced.

Many times the HIGHEST percentage of emotional connection is made APART from either dynamics or correct timbres and can be attributed to some other parameter. Other things are going in the human psyche that while listening to music we are unaware of.

Anyways...I have a good ear, i know what real instruments sound like, i am just as good a listener out there as anyone, i am picky about timbres, i have not heard correct reproduced timbres for years and was able to discern that they were in fact 'off' and all i can share is my experience ,whether people want to believe them or not, When my system has warmed for at least an hour and a half , with certain well recorded tracks and certain recorded sparse live musical events recorded on dvd, watching and listening to those and distinguishing those from actual live events (from a sonic perspective only)becomes extremely difficult.

"They sell all the nice audio toys and retreat in defeat to a simple integrated amp system”

Hey! I did not retreat in defeat to my simple integrated amp system. :)

May I offer a little more insight that over the years has led me to where I am at today in this hobby.

I mentioned the great argument, or the great debate,divide that has developed over the years.

Audiophiles all seem to be on one side of the fence or the other.
It wasn't always that way, at least not when I started.

So,when I say that everything is flawed,what do I think you should do?
Throw in the towel and give up?

Some folks do.They sell all the nice audio toys and retreat in defeat to a simple integrated amp system or a vintage pawn shop set up and sing the praises that the Holy Grail was there afterall back in 1970.They've "gotten off the merrygoround" of endless component swapping and trying to find the absolute sound and damned proud of it.They are no longer "audiofools" they tell us, we, who must still be audiofools.

They finally found out that all gear is flawed,and what they decided to do about it was mostly out of anger and contempt because nothing that they had bought at any price made them happy.
So what's left for them to do but lash out at the evil High End and call it all snake oil?

Well they could have done what myself and others have done when we came to the conclusion that irregardless of how well that amp or speakers meet spec, and how well reviewed they were, or how high they scored on the must have scale,something was always missing no matter how much you paid for it.
The gear's not perfect afterall.

Yet the real audio junkies(the folks who are the most educated in specsmanship and flaunt their knowledge of why things can or just can't be)maintain that a perfectly measured amp or component is well, perfect, and that if they just happen to own one, well that's all you need to do to arrive at audio Nirvana is to follow their lead and buy what they have been listening to.Accept their stamp of approval or fall prey to the snake oil salesman.

I like how they care about what you spend your money on.

Their ears have become immune to the flaws and deficiencies of thier system partly because they just haven't heard that many other good systems, and partly because they are so wrapped up in the measurements that listening for flaws just isn't in the equation.Flaws? How can there be any? My system measures perfectly.I have the specs and papers to prove it.

And then there are some folks like myself who have lived with a great deal of components over the years.Tried more than one amplifier technology, owned different typees of gear, and who can listen to vinyl and digital replay and find some good in both.

What some of us have done is to also get off the merrygoround, but where we differ is that we don't exchange one set of flawed components for another and then try to convince ourselves and the world that "my flaws" are the best there ever was or will be things have never improved, only gotten worse.

No we post on audio threads that adding a dedicated line improved the sound of what we had.That a fuse, power cord upgrade made as big or bigger improvement than interconnects or speaker wires.We treat the room, which is now starting to gain approval,in other words we accept the system that we have at the moment, knowing that it is flawed and not perfect(even if it is a perfectly measured kit)and try to make improvemnts to what we have.

This is to me the more logical next step in the game and makes more sense to me than chuking out good gear every six months looking for the next "fix" as a mentor of mine from years ago so apptly called most of his customers "audio junkies".

But ,try and post that something that can make something already perfect more "perfect" and you set off the next flame war.

You'll see every reason why(mostly quotes from years ago) such tweaks are nothing but snake oil.
Yet the posters supporting this side of the debate seldom if ever have even seen never mind tried the device in question.For most it's the first they've ever heard of such a thing, but "my years of study in electronics tells me it just can't be so" is usually the trump card.

Or so they would like the nebies to think.

This was as still is a great hobby.
It's filled with great surprises and you can improve your sound and in so doing improve the listening experience.

My advice is to try some of the things others talk about and decide for yourself if something so small and insignificant as a fuse or demagnetizing an lp or cd really works.
All you have to do is to try it.
You only have to buy it if it works for you.
And forget about "you can't trust your ears"from the debunkers,because they are the only two things you can and should trust in this hobby.

And when you do, you'll understand that topics like "which is more accurate"really are just a starting point for everything that polarizes this hobby.

Better to think about how can I make vinyl or digital more accurate in my system.

To me that makes more sense.

Vertigo wrote (among a great many other things): "..make a recording where all things are equal from your perspective(ie, your ears/the mics... are both 2ft from the bass and 5 ft from the drums and directionally the same)and play it back on a system with great tone, heft, speed, no blurring of transient, plays low(so not a ls3/5)(or with a myriad of other brands that are colored and distorted)(not with a myriad of colored, muddy, slow cables, cartridges, amps, etc)but gear with superb timbres and i say the differences between how you heard it while you were standing there playing it and how the playback is...the difference would be negligible. Or to the point where the differences are vanishingly low and unimportant."

I am truly at a loss here. It greatly saddens me that anyone, let alone an audiophile, could possibly believe this. Yes, Vertigo, I understand your points. And yes, I am a professional musician who experiences live music literally every day of my life. My job has also exposed me to the very best of audio reproduction, both past and current, and I have experience with a great variety of recording techniques, mike placement, etc. And no, I do not claim that my own system is the be-all end-all, or that anyone's is, for that matter. And yes, I do have both very good and very well trained ears. In fact, I have been trained to train other people's ears. And yes, I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example, or you truly think they are negligible and unimportant, then I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you.

Lacee,

I think often here, the existence of more esoteric products (high end turntables, tube amps, etc.) has to be justified to generate interest. Nothing wrong with that, these things are easily justified.

But the thing is I think often rather than merely letting these products stand on their own merits, there is a tendency to try to categorically debunk the mainstream competition, ie SS amps, digital, etc. Mainstream products from mainstream vendors are a bigger threat to the competition than vice versa. The little guy always has to work harder to justify their existence.

Lacee,

I really liked what you said in your last post. And if i have correctly understood what you are try to say...I agree with you.

I adopt Robert Harley's attitude...and i read this in his book as a fledgling audiophile and transfer it to all approaches of gear design and to each audiophiles system..."the perfect solid state amp and the perfect tube amp sound exactly the same because they are both perfect"

I like that. So, i am open and skeptical at the same time and try to learn and admit when an old prejudice has been overturned by a new experience or by new evidence and continue on the path.

Like, all good chefs say...cook with the best ingredients, fresh and in season! so too, i will argue with gear, synergize with the highest quality gear [as you understand it] to get the highest quality results.

You can't make as good a pasta sauce, [all other things being equal]with regular tomatoes as with organic tomatoes. The differences are fine but perceptible, at least to the connoisseur, who cares! So, too, i think, with cooking with gear.

I dont care if someone is solid state or tube,if his system is ridiculously expensive or cheaper ,etc,etc, etc,etc...the way i judge or try to judge is...how does it sound? Period. But we are human and we are subject to our human bias's and weaknesses so we try to remain as objective as we can...

Over the years I've come across quite a few audiophiles or psuedophiles, who seem to be on a mission to either prove that their gear and ideas are the best, everything else is either bunk, snake oil or doesn't hold up to conventional wisdoms.

These folks are pretty much against everything that claims to make an improvement.

How can it? Show me the proof!

Yet, inspite of all their objections, they have no experience with the things they are arguing about.

The other observation is that a lot of the same folks have limited experience.

Limited experience, for instance with amplifier designs.

If they use a solid state amp, then all tube amps are flawed.If it's a tube amp, then solid stae is flawed.Add in whatever stereotypes you want to describe the deficiencies of each.

And yet they never seem to get it, that matching the right amp to the speaker and actually listening to the combination is what has to be done before you can make any claims one way or the other.

This applies to the whole accuracy debate,most everyone has an opinion about what accuracy means to them, but there is no clear way to measure what we are hearing.
And no two poeople will hear the same things from the same systems.So is the solid state amp more accurate than the tube amp?Even if they both measure the same?
How come some folks prefer the sonics of one over the other.
If both measure the same can one be better than the other in some unmeasurable way?

Ah, yes, I believe that is the case with all things audio.

Over the years and with experience to different systems and approaches to listening to music(stats, cones, tubes,solid state, SET, class D)you start to understand that there are merits to every approach, that none are perfect, yet any can be enjoyed.

What sets one audiophile apart from another is not golden ears, it is experience, and with that experience comes wisdom .The kind of wisdom that would never say system A is better than system B or is more accurate,. All that can be said at the end of the day is that they were different.It's also the wisdom that was acquired hands on, not read from a white paper and either agreeing to what has been written or disagreeing if something seem outside your frame of reference.
And forgive me for being so long winded,but if the mind is kept closed, and one only limits themselves to limited exposure of "safe" components, then there is a whole world out there filled with people who would beg to differ with you.

So who is right and who is wrong? Digital vs vinyl, tubes vs solid state.

No one will ever win the "argument" that this audio hobby has turned into.

True, Phaelon.

RE***There has never been now or in the past a hifi system that can even recreate all the dynamics and overtones of a cymbal crash, let alone a whole drum set and orchestra.
****

Have you ever heard a koetsu coralstone cartridge or an allaerts formual one? I haven't heard either of those but when i went from a denon 103 to a Jan allaerts mc1b mk2 the latter was a revelation/paradigm shift in my mind in regards to what is possible. The 'poorer'(older)your gear the harder it is to believe what is possible since you have a certain reference point from which you measure and naturally you remain skeptical. These carts are examples of "extreme audio". A combination of exotic materials , ie , solid gold transmission lines(in the allaerts)and exotic engineering designs. Do some research into some of the thought put into these cartridges and you will see how much effort and passion has gone into these designs.

RE***Think about the foolishness of someone closing their eyes,listening to a pair of Ls3/5A(No slightintended)and being foolish enough to say that, yes the whole Duke Ellington band appeared in front of me.****

Yes, that would be foolish since the ls3 is a minimonitor but how does that have anything to do with our discussion?

RE***Talk about imaginations running wild!
And people laugh at folks who claim to hear power cord differences?***

I do hear differences between power cords and those people can laugh all they want. I believe...the people who can't tell those kinds of difference.... don't really care for the differences, that is... they are not connoisseur's of sound. Some people think every bottle of wine taste's pretty much the same too but if you have an appreciation and a passion for wine your ability to discern goes up too, since with passion comes commitment and with commitment comes all the work of tasting and looking for fine differences between different wines. This transfers over to cables and audio gear in general.

RE***You just cannot get anywhere near the sonic wave attack of live instruments with any home system, no matter how tight you close your eyes****

If you mean to say that i believe how tightly you close your eyes directly effects the quality of ones sound system then you've misunderstood my previous posts about valid blind comparison's between live music and stereo reproduction.

What i was saying/trying to say in my previous post, was in regard to how the combination of both VISUAL and SONIC information at a live event is erroneously a unfair comparison with home systems BECAUSE...home systems don't have the advantage of a "VISUAL feast" of the musical event to boost your satisfaction level. AND that if you strip away that "visual feast" you level the playing field and are making a more fair comparison. There are other factors that make it an unfair comparison too, like , mic placement and quality.

RE***Also when a live band is playing, the whole room resonates,and not just from volume,we can play soft.
But even at soft ,low volume there is still a lot of air being charged and moved by the sonic waves from the instruments, and let's not forget about how everything in the room including the audience all contribute to fine tuning the wave launch.****

When i play the "nirvana unplugged" dvd through my system i set the volume just right so it 'loads' the room just so, that it does in fact feel very much like a live event. Playing loud notes or soft notes at the same time is a system's ability to play in a ...'wide dynamic range', so that soft notes don't lose their character and loud , fast notes don't lose their character at the same time as well. I hear the gentle tapping of dave's sticks on the brass cymbals in all their gentle glory. I hear wood i hear brass. I hear the skin and springs of his snare drum, while chris's bass lines are clear controlled, the air is crisp,clear, charged[i hear and 'feel' the air???!!][if that makes sense][which adds to the spell], the noise floor is low and things are individuated but somehow coherent at the same time.[hearing is believing]

I have amps that are very fast, clean, clear and toneful. I have heavy gauge speaker cables that can carry heft and weight. My speakers have very similar characteristics to my amp and utilize neodymium magnets. If you buy two neodymium n50 disc magnets they come with warnings about how to handle them. They are the size of smarties but can cut you if they catch your skin while they come together...FAST!.

Neodymium magnets executed in a good design [Based on my experience with them] take transient speed response and clarity, through the stratosphere.[things become more transparent, mimicking reality].

My allaerts cart contains them too, so transient response on the vinyl side shows up my digital system. My amp with kr845 tubes recreates the ambience of "charged air" like that in a small concert room ...just right. Some previous solidstate designs i owned made the air cold and flatfield, not alive like in reality! Perhaps its the stripped down, sparse versions(not hard, congested, distorted versions) of these nirvana songs that make my system able to make it so believable. Like it sounds so good i don't how i could improve the sound? It is that enjoyable, that satisfying, that intimate. The sound is ripe, supple, dynamic, tuneful, quiet, clear, powerful or gentle, cymbals have amazing sheen and good decay, ambient.

RE***Live music is an experience involving all the senses.
Listening to reproduced music involves one maybe two at best.

So how can reproduced music ever be called accurate?***

By that definition you're right it can never be called accurate but if you define it live music differently, it changes the ball game.

So with that said...it can be called accurate when we can say that how we heard it and understood it with our eyes closed LIVE is mimicked in our HOME STEREOS with our eyes closed.[THIS is the correct standard to judge by]

RE***I can tell you that when I play bass and stand next to the drummer,I don't have to close my eyes to get the full measure of what he is doing.****

No you don't, but to understand my point, you should!

Its also an unfair comparison, since the position of your ears and their distance from your bass and the drum kit are naturally going to sound different from a mic that is recording possibly from a very different location and is receiving info probably coming from a different angle from the source of the sound. A recording made from this mic will have a different perspective than yours, so it would be an unfair comparison, since all things are not equal.

But...make a recording where all things are equal from your perspective(ie, your ears/the mics... are both 2ft from the bass and 5 ft from the drums and directionally the same)and play it back on a system with great tone, heft, speed, no blurring of transient, plays low(so not a ls3/5)(or with a myriad of other brands that are colored and distorted)(not with a myriad of colored, muddy, slow cables, cartridges, amps, etc)but gear with superb timbres and i say the differences between how you heard it while you were standing there playing it and how the playback is...the difference would be negligible. Or to the point where the differences are vanishingly low and unimportant.

With all this said, i will grant that perhaps i overestimate how good the nirvana dvd sounds in my place, and a few other selections.... overestimate in the sense that because i wasn't actually their in the audience that night i have no reference to judge by but... you know how if someone asks you how a speaker you owned a few years back... sounds? you can't really remember in totality how it sounded because your memory fades/is fuzzy? this is true also of our memory of just how reality sounds! We recharge our memories by going to live music... well... i would say some of my belief that the nirvana dvd sounds identical to reality is because of this condition, ie. it sounds just like how i remember they should... BUT... even if that's not the case , the great thing is... that it doesn't matter! because obviously i still retain some memory of how live music sounds and if it sounds so good that i have to strain to find a point at which it differs, then it must be sounding so good that at this point , it doesn't really matter.

Maybe in your systems its easy, in mine, at certain moments, its difficult. Maybe if i heard your system's i would understand where you're coming from.

These days, my system sounds 'great' with more regularity regardless of format or quality of recording. On the few spectacular recordings though, with certain tracks, my systems sound is a amazing.[imho]

As i alluded to earlier, if you've never heard how good something can sound til you've heard your last 'reference'... bettered, you will naturally mock any such claims.

If you read some of my other posts in other places you will see how i have been quite critical of the whole hi end audio industry in terms of its promises and the actual delivery of those promises. It wasn't until i shelled out waay more carefully spent money that i actually felt i was getting "hifi" so when i say at certain moments i can't distinguish my stereo playback from real instruments, it comes from a person who has been frustrated with 'hifi' for over 5 years and from a person who only in the last year or so, is starting to feel much better and different about that. That difference can be explained by the increase of quality of the gear in my system.

RE*** I stand by my statement that if someone cannot distinguish between live and recorded music, then they have a hearing problem of some kind. ****

We are both obviously looking/listening to two different things. So, actually we are both right! Is it possible that your system cannot mimick reality to the degree that mine can? As bob dylan sings " you are right from your side and i am right from mine..."

RE*** if I misunderstood part of your post, I apologize. I am often reading and typing on here late at night when I am tired after a heavy concert, as I was last night and again now. ***

No problem, I do something like that too...ie,post in a certain frame of mind.

As, i think about it further...when i said my systems sound is like the live event i did not mean to say, nor did i ever think that my system was able to reproduce Nirvana's drummer, David Grohl's drum set in its totality during a very congested fast musical moment like i was standing 3 feet from his kit[though if i had a well miked recording from that position,,,who knows!] rather what i meant to say and had in mind was that at certain moments, with simpler musical passages, with sparse instruments, in my system, they have fooled my mind into thinking i am listening to the real thing to the point of straining for differences. [Please note those qualifications.]Especially vocals and timbre[see jan allaerts cartridge]. A good example of this is Norah Jones's last track on the lp..."Turn me on"

I know i'm not alone on this and i wouldn't have understood it til a year ago. But now i know and understand what people mean when they say the playback becomes so good its...

"spooky"

Well, this is what i am trying to articulate...when i play that dvd or the song "turn me on" its so real...its "spooky"

When it sounds that Good that means that EVERYTHING in the system is synergizing. This is so fragile and i've experienced this myself...change one interconnect or one cable, or plug something in in another place, one little change and the spell is broken! and it sounds like a stereo again. Those same recordings! I am talking very fine nuances being preserved or lost! [these kinds of subtle cues and nuances, this level of playback artisanship imho can only be found on upper level products and even only in well synergized combinations of those same products]

If you're not experiencing 'spooky' from time to time, where recorded music sounds like 'nothing'and 'spooky real'... check both your ears and .... your system's.

I never believed it either til i heard it myself. I don't feel my system is finished. Nor am i always completely satisfied but as my ear continues to develop, as i experience new levels of paradigm shifts in regard to what is possible from 'gear', as the technology moves forward, i am building a system that is more consistently pushing the boundaries of what i believed possible.

"I stand by my statement that if someone cannot distinguish between live and recorded music, then they have a hearing problem of some kind.”

Maybe not a hearing problem, but a listening problem. All of our senses are subject to the selectivity of our mind. Whether music or visual art, our minds tend to disregard or filter elements that are subjectively less important than other elements. As an example, some people can be very content with severely rolled off frequency extremes while others will find it a critical omission. I hope I’m not offending anyone; all I’m trying to say is that when one audiophile doesn’t hear what is so clear to another, it is not necessarily clinical but perhaps a matter of focus.

Hi Mapman and Vertigo - first, Vertigo, if I misunderstood part of your post, I apologize. I am often reading and typing on here late at night when I am tired after a heavy concert, as I was last night and again now.

That said, Lacee is correct. I'm sorry, but there is simply no way that ANY audio reproduction system can possibly be mistaken for the real thing, even the very best ones (though picking the very best ones is of course VERY subjective). They may sound very good indeed, and I suppose it is possible that someone could prefer them to a live concert (something no musician would ever think, by the way). But to actually mistake it for the live event? Nope. Again, if you have a problem doing this, your ears are nowhere near as good as you think they are. It is not "very close," even in the very best systems, especially if we are talking acoustically produced music, and it never will be. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that the argument is even being made, especially by an audiophile! Not that a "better" or a so-called "golden" ear is needed. I stand by my statement that if someone cannot distinguish between live and recorded music, then they have a hearing problem of some kind.

Lacee, I agree with you completely. Great post.

There has never been now or in the past a hifi system that can even recreate all the dynamics and overtones of a cymbal crash, let alone a whole drum set and orchestra.

Think about the foolishness of someone closing their eyes,listening to a pair of Ls3/5A (No slightintended)and being foolish enough to say that, yes the whole Duke Ellington band appeared in front of me.

Talk about imaginations running wild!
And people laugh at folks who claim to hear power cord differences?

You just cannot get anywhere near the sonic wave attack of live instruments with any home system, no matter how tight you close your eyes, and no matter how much attention and money you've spent on gear and room tuning.
It ain't gonna happen.

I can tell you that when I play bass and stand next to the drummer,I don't have to close my eyes to get the full measure of what he is doing.

You can almost feel it like a presence all it's own.

Also when a live band is playing, the whole room resonates,and not just from volume,we can play soft.
But even at soft ,low volume there is still a lot of air being charged and moved by the sonic waves from the instruments, and let's not forget about how everything in the room including the audience all contribute to fine tuning the wave launch.

Try duplicating that at home, in a small room or a large room with just yourself or a couple of friends.

I think people are quite good at recognition and erroniously lump this in with accuracy.

Most of us have systems that can reproduce a sax well enough that we know we are hearing a sax and not a trombone.
HiFi systems are great at this, that's why it's called Reproduced Sound.
But there is so much missing that it can never be called Accurate sound.

I have also never been fooled into believing I was transported to the concert even when watching well produced 5.1 music videos.
Entertained yes, but even with the added viual cues,there is no comparison.
Being there ,live at the concert can be reproduced,but it's just that, a reproduction.

This is so elemental, I can't understand why people still make claims of the musicians, suddenly appearing in the room.

Yeah, a 20 piece band, and all instruments fit into a bedromm sized listening room.

It's like saying photographs of people and the people themselves in the flesh, were one and the same,indistinguishable.

Live music is an experience involving all the senses.
Listening to reproduced music involves one maybe two at best.

So how can reproduced music ever be called accurate?
How can any medium be called more accurate, when accuracy can't be achieved?

But, enjoyment can be measured.

It can be measured at the concert and in the home, and sometimes the intimacy of a home music session can be more enjoyable than a room full of obnoxious loud distractions.

To me, it makes more sense to search for the music,and the reproducing gear that ups the enjoyment factor,and not try to strive for something that's unobtainable, such as accuracy.

Besides how will you know it if you hear it?
And to what can you measure the degree of accuracy?
The sound of a live musical event?

Nope, sorry, that only happened once, and it's gone and it's just someone's interpretation of that event and it's now a shadow of it's original state.It's been altered, and distorted and shaped to fit someone's idea of what the sound should sound like, and that can not be the same as your idea.

So close your eyes as tight as you can and use your imagination, because in the end that's the best you can do.

RE ***It will be even easier to tell the difference blindfolded, as your sense of hearing will be heightened. A great many of the people in concert halls with their eyes closed are not sleeping - they are listening better. ****

Who said anything to the contrary? I don't even address that topic at all. Forgive me but , I think you misunderstood the whole point of my previous post. I won't go over it again.

RE***there is no way a recording could ever be mistaken for live music, unless one has very bad ears indeed. If one cannot hear the difference, that is a problem, and your ears should be checked.****

I think i have a pretty acute ear, and have heard a few systems, and have been able to pinpoint their strengths and their faults and the same goes for my own system. I have heard alot of bad systems and a few really good ones. In retrospect i realize i have lived with alot of bad systems posing as hifi. Also i own an acoustic guitar that is made of all real hardwoods and real bone nut and bridges, not plastic and laminates, so i have some understanding of what "real tone" sounds like.

Live events have sound problems too! just like home systems and i can pinpoint problems at live events.

I went to see dylan in 2008. The sound was atrocious and dylans frog voice (now in its 70's) wasn't much better (that is if your expecting to understand the words).

You know what i got out of that event? It was not the sound bit it was the visual that gave me the rush! and the knowledge that dylan was 20 feet away from me. It was not the sound. It was seeing him in person. If the sound of that night had been recorded from the perspective of someone standing on the floor and pressed onto a record, i'm sure my system could reproduce with great fidelity , how terrible it sounded! (smile)(laughing)

Some of the pinpointing of sound problems i can articulate and some of it i just know something is wrong but can't quite express in words what the sonic problem is. It takes time i think to develop an astute ear and having an astute ear as you know, is not simply about how well you score on a hearing test, though of course that is very important.

Anyways, my hearing is within normal range. I do have a slight loss on the top end frequencies (a little more so in the left ear) but again it is within normal range.

RE***If one cannot hear the difference, that is a problem, and your ears should be checked.****

Maybe what needs to be checked is SOMEONE'S SYSTEM.... if they feel the disparity between blind listening at a live musical event and blind listening at home are not even close or as pleasurable? If your system distorts, or the noise floor is too high, if it is too warm or too clinical, if timbres and dynamics are suffering in high degree, than my claim, naturally will seem to be absurd but...i stand by my conviction that really great system's, at certain moments are just as good or very close to live [maybe even better! because they are produced and polished further from the individual tracks that are laid down].

The technology has come along way and with careful system matching, exotic materials, etc, the sound is approaching ..."fantastic"

lf, i think it can be close enough to not matter to many. doesn't have to mean that hearing is bad.

Vertigo said "I would venture to guess that some very good system's are as good as or extremely close to the live event to the point where the differences are negligible. [blindfolded]."

Absolutely not. In fact, depriving one sense heightens the others. It will be even easier to tell the difference blindfolded, as your sense of hearing will be heightened. A great many of the people in concert halls with their eyes closed are not sleeping - they are listening better.

There was another thread about this recently - there is no way a recording could ever be mistaken for live music, unless one has very bad ears indeed. If one cannot hear the difference, that is a problem, and your ears should be checked.

No doub't all senses in play at a live event.

I always close my eyes when attempting to assess listening live versus at home. Its a valuable exercise to use live events as a reference (as well as to listen to various "reference" systems in different settings) as long as you are able to filter out extraneous sensual factors and also take all the factors that make the difference with the sound alone (like room acoustics)into account. Otherwise, you are doomed to be continually chasing both a moving and nebulous target.

I know this is veering off the topic of the thread kind of...but one thing i think that is often or always overlooked is that when you listen to music live, you are having both a sonic reference to the experience but also a live visual reference/experience!

Take a moment to consider just how good listening to live music blind folded would be? This makes it a more fair comparison with our stereo systems.

That is...i think people tout the live event [the holy grail refernce/standard] as being so much better than our stereo's because of the visual aspect AND the physical aspect of being at the event!

I have never seen this addressed on any forums anywhere! but i think it applies to the discussion and topic.

You've heard of blind comparisons right? What are they for? So, that you are not biased/manipulated by what you see but are left only to discern with your ears alone. Its about quality control of test results/conclusions.

So, when people compare live music to their systems they should compare both blindfolded or they should at least take note of the fact that they are getting visual stimulus from the live event along with musical info.

In a live venue you can turn your head around and see the room, the people behind you, someone steps on your foot when you are on the concert floor, how can 2 speakers compete against all these extra senses being triggered and adding to the "experience of the "music""?

I would venture to guess that some very good system's are as good as or extremely close to the live event to the point where the differences are negligible. [blindfolded]

Is that audiophile heresy? (smile)

I can confirm some of the stuff i'm saying by giving an example.

Ever watched/listened to Nirvana unplugged with the lights low in your room and through your hifi?

This is a very well recorded dvd and when you combine great audio playback ALONG WITH VISUAL CUES (and in low lighting so where you are ..."gets blurred")...i have been BLOWN AWAY with the feeling Kurt cobain is still alive and singing right there before me! The audio recording of that event is just superb in my opinion. Anyways...if while watching the show, the tv suddenly died, the "powerful illusion" that i am there gets diminished because you lose the visual contributions to your "suspension of reality".

So, in defense of our systems, being at a live musical event is in someways an unfair comparison especially if you don't take into account the degree to which visual cues are adding to your degree of pleasure while at the event.

Comparing both blind is a higher quality comparison since you should be judging sonics with sonics NOT Sonics plus visual with just sonics.

I am not suggesting people need to go to live events blindfolded, i'm just stating ....whether they know it or not ...that its to some degree an unfair comparison. Not TOTALLY unfair but to some degree, AT LEAST... it is.

.

"It's always amazed me at how more realistic and lifelike some of my old mono lp are when compared to even new vinyl releases."

I find that mono can often be more realistic and lifelike also even with mono CDs, especially good remasters of older mono material.

Works especially well with blues, R&B, R&R, and other older forms of popular music. Beatles, Chuck Berry, Buffy Holly, Muddy Waters, Elvis are a few examples.

Both mediums are flawed and neither is 100% accurate to the original live event,and I mean event, not the recording of that event.

It's always amazed me at how more realistic and lifelike some of my old mono lp are when compared to even new vinyl releases.

I think minimalism is one important aspect that often is overlooked in modern recording.

If you can, throw in the kitchen sink and go with as many tracks as you can,in other words too much audio techno for techno sake.

The old pros only rode the volume control and yet most of those analog recordings sound very lifelike, and it's amazing when you think of all the time that has passed since those recordings were made.
And how far and advanced(?)modern recording technology has come since then.

But I have to shake my head everytime I listen to a vinyl or cd of music recorded in the last few years and wonder what the heck happened?

This I think is why analog is more accurate if it was done in a minimalist way when the music was recorded.

I think a lot of the "accuracy" is lost the more you veer off the path of simple recording with good mics and even better recording techniques.

The old fix it in the mix and band aid, frankenstein multi studio patch jobs have robbed most of todays music of any shreds of accuracy to the original event.

If you want accuracy , go out and support the live musicians(unamplified is preferable),cause you ain't gonna get it with vinyl or digital.
You may prefer the sound or convenience of one over the other,but accuracy is something that cannot be determined.
There's just been too much junk placed between the musicians and your ears , rendering accuracy moot.

Stick with what sounds best, and forget about the concept of accuracy.

It doesn't apply in this hobby, which is all about illusion and not accuracy.

RE***What are some examples of music that does not sound like music?***

There aren't any because if its "music" then it sounds like music!

The are many examples of noises that try to fool you into thinking its music though! (but ultimately cant and doesnt)

It's a great cliche and true..."a superlative system will make the gear disappear."

Our systems can be very good approximation's of the real recorded musical event. That's the good news.

Remember the police's album..."the ghost in the machine"?

Open up the top of your amp or cd player. Can you see the music there amongst the capacitors and wires? Where is the music and what is it? What makes it come?

People make the rhythm, not the recordings, right?

I'm not sure how one format or another gets an advantage regarding rhythm.

Surely imperfections in record manufacturing including warping can have an effect on things. Not sure I understand how digital would normally have any rhythm issues. Resolution, maybe, but resolution and effects of that is different from rhythm at least with how I understand these things.

++++ A bit off topic here, but it seems to me that a lot of classical musicians spend a heck of a lot of time working on their "tone".+++++

True, but I assure you that even more energy is spent on good rhythm. But interestingly (and this points to some of audio-related issues being discussed here) while rhythm is something that can certainly be "worked on" or practiced by a musician, the kind of rhythmic flexibility and control that defines an artist as opposed to, simply, a good musician is something that is difficult to learn. Many times (not always) it is something that is innate. Tone can be worked on and developed more easily. The control and flexibility that define an artist, and which allow him/her to be expressive in a way that really touches the listener is what gets distorted very easily by recordings.

A bit off topic here, but it seems to me that a lot of classical musicians spend a heck of a lot of time working on their "tone".

Electric guitarists do too! Like crazy- very picky as well.

What are some examples of music that does not sound like music? Isn't that a paradox?

Live, vinyl, 78 rpm, CD, mp3..... it all sounds like music to me. The thing is even all live music sounds different based on many factors that come into play in any particular case. Same true with recordings. One must be careful about making generalized statements like all ______ sound like this or have a problem with ______. Its all good in the end if used effectively. 78s (gen 1 technology) does have the most obvious limits, but I have a good feel even for what 78s should sound like so I expect nothing more which enables me to appreciate some of teh good things that even such a technically flawed format like that has to offer.

A bit off topic here, but it seems to me that a lot of classical musicians spend a heck of a lot of time working on their "tone".

Frogman, I totally agree with you in regard to "time and rhythm" giving music its vibrancy.

If i may...I would like to say the same thing but in different wording...that music at its most primal level is received and appreciated by its "beat". If we don't feel the "beat" we start to yawn.

It is only in the last 6 months or so that the light is coming on for me (so ta speak) about the primacy of macro dynamics, macro transient speed without blurring and "weight".

One powerful example is Nirvanas "come as you are". The song starts off relatively quiet and stays that way til "the turn". The change happens when dave grohl "pounds" the drums twice, signifying that the song is going to be taken somewhere else. This turning moment is a great test for a system's, macro dynamic transient speed/weight without blurring...at this moment things should just EXPLODE!(i don't know of any other recorded moment like this one) and you should be moved by the moment ...if you're not... better shop for a better power cable or speaker or amp...something isn't quite right.

At this point in my ...exxuse the expression "audiophile journey" i have come to a place where i believe the two primary essential non negotiable elements on which hi end stereo systems stand or fall are...

Yes...1. Macro dynamic transient speed without blurring/weight "the beat"

and...

2. Timbre (often overlooked and consistently neglected)

Get these two right and you are 90 percent of the way there!

After 6 years and thousands and thousands of dollars later i am still in pursuit of these attributes.

It took me about that long for the light to come on about their primacy. Its amazing how hard it is to find what you dont know what youre looking for. If someone knows and understands this...i think they are in a great position to become a satisfied audiophile.

Ever been 5 feet away from a single violin as it plays? Take that emotional response away with you and that is the value of correct timbre! Now if its stereo playback speed is too slow, too fast, ie hyped up or blurred (assuming the timbre is impeccably reproduced) you still lose something there. (now i am talking about #1 (the dynamics) get both right and if the song is good you are in for a good trip!

Switching gears...

RE***"But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition."***

To labour the point further...How many times have you heard audiophiles say "i go to hear live music and that is the standard by which i measure the quality of my stereo playback"?

Thats fine if you are in the 5th row of a all acoustic unamplified orchestra or jazzz band but what about seeing U2, Guns'n roses, Taylor swift, in a "live" amplified, noisy stadium? That's live too! but should that be useful for measuring "accuracy of timbre" for your home system? The natural timbres of those acoustic instruments are now amplified and PA'd.

So judging acoustic unamplified instrumental timbres and small amplified jazz or large concert hall rock shows must be distinguished from one another in regards to using "live music" as my standard. They are two very different categories when it comes to timbre fidelity. Some live music is the most distorted, noisy, inaudible stuff you can listen to! Give me my studio recorded album's kybosh live!

One is acoustic jazz/classical/folk...the other category is electric rock!

But to be fair...I do think i have a pretty good idea if bob dylan's ELECTRIC highway 61's album sounds timbrally right through my speakers or not. I have heard it done right and sound amazing and i have heard it done not so right and fall a bit flat. So, maybe a case can still be made even for the accuracy of amplified music too.

I guess the bottom line is...whatever the genre...when it sounds like music ...its hard to define...but when you hear it...you just know...regardless of genre...it sounds like music and your connecting with it. Maybe that should be the standard and forget all the debate. Thanks...

.

That's right - you tell 'em, Frogman! :)

"And then we have the really elusive, non-tonal aspects of music that define accuracy (or not); the rhythmic and dynamic subtleties that are heard in live, unprocessed music that are almost destroyed by most equipment."

"Time and rhythm is what gives music it's vibrancy. That is where the soul of the music is; the human touch. It is also what gets distorted the most by the recording/ playback process.”

Frogman,
Ever since this thread began (actually long before), I’ve been searching for the words to express the point of view you have so eloquently posted here. Thanks.

Once again, the "sound", the tone/timbre of music becomes the focus of the discussion. More important issues are overlooked. Time and rhythm is what gives music it's vibrancy. That is where the soul of the music is; the human touch. It is also what gets distorted the most by the recording/ playback process. Ideally, live unamplified music should be the standard. But live amplified music can also serve. The immediacy and impact of a miked kick drum at a concert in an arena, or the grandeur of a full string section making a crescendo during a Mahler symphony cannot be duplicated by even the best sound systems. Those deficiencies make the issues of wether the sound is a little bright here or a little bloated there seem petty by comparison. I find the argument that there are too many variables, too many different sounding halls, different engineers, yada yada, to be a tired argument. It's all about familiarity with the sound of the real thing.

"Medusa looks better when her photo is not accurate.”

Curious... shouldn’t you be stone? :)

"But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition."

Yeah, maybe the fact is nothing is really sufficient. OR maybe it just really doesn't matter. Just enjoy the music!

Interesting discussion though.

If we can all agree to the standard by which to measure whether or not a sound reproduced by a stereo is accurate or not then we can begin to judge whether or not that reproduced sound is in fact accurate.

But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition.

Distinctions need to be made.

If we were to agree that our standard will be unamplified instruments like violins, guitars, flutes, drums. Then we have a standard. A ruler is a standard by which we measure whether or not a line is straight. If we put the ruler up against the line we can then see and judge.

Where things become complicated is when acoustic instruments become AMPLIFIED THEN RECORDED. This adds a secondary manipulation to the natural timbre of an acoustic instrument.

Now the judging becomes more difficult, since you have instrument plus quality of amplifying gear plus quality of recording gear plus the transfer gear used to put to the destination format, ie vinyl, digital, 8 track!

What is the timbre of a PA or a particular amp isolated from the instrument? Who really knows? All we know is the different degrees of quality with their synergies, ie when the flute is amplified by the pa but not recorded.

What the hell am i trying to say? I guess...that because recordings are made with gear which is either unknown to us or unfamiliar we are going to have a hard time judging whether or not the line is straight? If the only kind of music that was recorded was unamplified acoustic instruments we could have some hope in really knowing whether or not our systems are up to snuff but that is not the reality, there are thousands of different guitar amps and PA systems.

So in my opinion it is ultimately a exercise in futility to try and attain perfection across the board, everytime and all the time.

So the question "which is more accurate" is a sharp hook and people are foolish to bite onto the question at all! (smile)(hence my cocky first posting)(forgive me)

So, to me its not a vinyl or digital issue. I think we should be unprejudiced to format.

I like to enter someones room "blindfolded" let the person play their system back to me , i listen for a while and ask?

Ok, what's this person got going on in his system, is it good, is it bad, is it ok? do i like it or not? I dont care necessarily if he is using a line conditioner or not, if he is using vinyl or not, what i care about is...is it good or not...thats it. I dont even make a distinction between live or recorded music. Same response...am i enjoying myself or not?

Medusa looks better when her photo is not accurate.

Aphrodite's beauty is portrayed best in an accurate photo.

SO in terms of gaining pleasure from our senses, this is best achieved with an accurate representation of something beautiful accordingly. This is closest to the audiophile scenario IMHO.

When something is not so beautiful to start with, less accurate representations might actually be preferred. Depends on how ugly it really is I suppose. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent.

Vertigo, I believe your apple pie comparison is misplaced. Apple pies might more likely be compared to recordings, and the formats might be more appropriately compared to the pans they're baked in.

Frogman, despite the digital dig, I think your point is right on.

Some good points above, Vertigo.

The comment "More accurate, mind you, not better sounding" makes no sense, but belies the common (among audiophiles) lack of understanding of what accuracy means. Unfortunately, accuracy is seen as something that is independent of a verifiable reference. The more a listener spends time listening to live music, the easier it becomes to recognize and define accuracy. Familiarity with live music is the only way to attach real meaning to the term; anything else is just an expression of preference.

Many audiophiles have a notion of what constitutes accurate or euphonious sound that is not rooted in reality. Being used to the "accurate", thin and tipped-up sound of most digitally recorded strings, I think they would be very surprised to hear how "euphonious" a great string section playing the Dvorak Serenade For Strings in a great concert hall can sound. Conversely, they would be equally surprised at how incredibly abrasive and strident a soprano saxophone can sound heard live and up-close in a club. In both cases, if a piece of equipment can
convey this, it approaches accuracy. And then we have the really elusive, non-tonal aspects of music that define accuracy (or not); the rhythmic and dynamic subtleties that are heard in live, unprocessed music that are almost destroyed by most equipment.

Also...

RE***More accurate, mind you, not better sounding. ***

This makes no sense to me. So therefore "more accurate" necessarily must equal worse sounding??!!

No.

"Accurate" necessarily must be understood as a sonic virtue, therefore "accurate" necessarily should equal "better sounding".

Its a contradiction to say something is more accurate but NOT better sounding.

Accurate should be understood as a sonic virtue and not a sonic vice.

Impeccable "Accuracy" should lead to emotional involvement with zero negative effects, at least that is how i define and understand "accuracy".

The best accuracy i have ever heard was with vinyl, though that level of accuracy sometimes eludes me because of several factors but when everything is right, its like "wow!"

Sadly because vinyl playback involves physical/mechanical parameters to be optimal ...it is more work and more difficult to realize and acheive these optimal conditions but with that said...i argue when those optimal conditions are realized it IS the BEST.

So, with all this said, I will answer the question as i see it.

Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

When everything is right and it relatively, rarely is...

Vinyl... is more accurate than digital.

(and..."a good song" transcends "the hair splitting" of anal retentive "hi-fidelity" audiophiles.)

A good song has a life of its own that doesn't depend on hi-fidelity to enjoy its life.

95 percent of its value can be hear on a 500 dollar system the last 5 percent... is made manifest on a 25,000 plus system.

*

The whole point of being an audiophile is ..."to be moved by a piece of music"

A piece of music, is something ineffable. this might be bad news but you can be moved by a piece of music heard over a used $5 dollar am radio you bought at the salvation army!

A good song transcends fidelity because songs are more than that.

bob dylan has listened to music via cassettes on a getto blaster to explore music.

Songs have a life of their own because of the words and the melody. Hi fidelity is just "getting a kick out of trying to reproduce real life instruments through gear as you hear them in real life"

"Which is more accurate?" There is no definitive answer. I suppose some are deriving pleasure from asking the question and that's ok. But we need to let go and enjoy. Perhaps i'm preaching to the choir but maybe not for some...

Sound reproduction is as varied as cooking. No two apple pies are identical and each must be compared to another on a case by case basis.

There are a plethora of contingencies involved in each form of playback, in each individual case that meaningful discussion becomes futile.

Both formats are hit and miss. But i still feel persuaded to say, that the BEST playback i have ever heard, when the planets align, was vinyl.

So, if the question was...""when the planets align", which is the most accurate format:digital or vinyl?" (and by "accurate" you mean as a virtue "best sounding so as to move you" ...I would answer by saying..."vinyl is more accurate".

How do you determine what "accurate" is?

I think as the hardware improves,we can hear improvents in the accuracy or both vinyl and digital formats.

What does seem to tip the hat infavour of digital is the promised master tape fidelity of hi res digital dowmloads.

I've heard a bit of this, and compared to an extremely more expensive SME 30/12,Clearaudio Strad cart,AR phono and 25 Anniversary,on Sonus Strad speakers and Nagra VPA amps,it was hard to tell if one was any more accurate than the other.

The real fly in the ointment, was that for the first time, digital was as good or better than the full blown vinyl set up in this system.

Never thought a vinyl guy like myself would ever say that, but that's what I heard.

Ralph,

I run a recording studio so we see this sort of comparison all the time. I get asked, 'why do you have all this old analog crap?' all the time. I just sit them down and play the difference.

Ah...that was beautiful ;-)

Vbr,
Sam

Duomike, even with the best turntable, if there are problems in the design of the phono section, ticks and pops will be abundant! This can have nothing to do with the actual LP BTW.

Mapman, the birdies I am referring to can be heard by anybody when you employ a sweep tone to ferret them out. Here is someone who discovered this phenomena by accident:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/34329-cd-frequency-sweep-can-hear-birdies.html

It seems that the slower the sweep, the easier they are to hear. Now consider that this sort of thing (in-harmonic distortion) is going on all the time within the context of music during playback. The ear will interpret this as a brightness, even though some of the 'birdies' content can be low frequency.

To be more precise, the birdie tone is a non-linear manifestation of intermodulation between the scan frequency and the actual tone. As the tone changes frequency, so does the birdie tone. It is caused by poor dithering technique, poor monotonicity in the DAC, and other inter-modulations in the conversion process. I'm pretty sure the industry could have avoided a good bit of this had they been paying attention, but the assumption was that if the digital system had super low THD that is was therefore free of distortion. They just simply didn't *look* for any other forms until much later...

Could it come down to one's preference between; sins of omission vs. sins of commission?

I have listened to some of the best turntables on the planet, clear audio statement, continuum labs, rock port series 3 (hope I remember all those names correctly).
what always bothered me even with quite new records was the noise levels namely pops and clicks. I can also always hear some tracking distortions from the needle going through the groove. Guess many people are not sensitive to these things because they have grown up with these noises and consider digital less musical because these things are missing.
That analog sounds as good as it does is quite surprising to me considering how much eq is applied before the lp is cut and after playback. Also when thinking about through how many amplification stages this tiny signal has to travel com pared to digital.
Just my personal opinion. to each his own!

Atmasphere - thank you, thank you, thank you. Most people can indeed hear digital artifacts just fine, when they have a decent analog system to compare it with. Many musicians like myself have been trying in vain to convince people of what you are saying in this thread without the benefit of your technical knowledge to back ourselves up. You state such things in layman's terms better than anyone else I have ever read. I also like this: "The real question is, no matter how good the digital, 'what would this have sounded like if an analog recording system was used?" I could not agree more.

With the influences that friction, drag and vibration have on vinyl, is it possible that part of the appeal of vinyl is that (like tube amps) it can be tuned to the listeners taste?

Also I wonder: is there a record out there with a perfectly recorded sine recorded such that it can produce a perfect sin wave with no artifacts when played?

One other thing I just thought of I will say is that my Dynaudios on my same system can sound a tad bright sometimes, perhaps more so with digital. THere is a consensus though with users that they can be a tad towards the bright side with some gear compared to others, so I attribute it to that. Nothing offensive either, just a slight propensity towards teh bright side. Few speakers are perfectly neutral.

My OHM Walshes though, are generally regarded as having pretty flat response and zero brightness with digital or analog there. They also use a Walsh style driver up to 8Khz or so, then a separate conventional tweeter kicks in. Perhaps there is something in the radically unconventional OHM CLS Walsh driver design that is the magic antidote?

I have heard digital on more conventional high end reference systems at dealers not sound bright either, so I think there is several ways at least perhaps to solve the problem you allude to from what I have heard.

Funny that I think many guys who hate digital are older guys like me who probably can't hear anymore beyond 14 Khz or so whereas the younger kids who should be affected are all into their ipods or maybe slightly better digital if tehy even care.

Ralph,

At what frequencies does the harmonic issues occur?

I am not aware of any speaker system that is said to be able to pass a sin wave unaltered so perhaps nothing unusual in sin wave artifacts, chose your type or not.

Original OHM A or F full range Walshes perhaps, but I think even those only went to 16 khz or so.

Maybe when I was 18 years old and tested as able to hear pretty much up to 20khz I would have heard something.

I think for every digital artifact one could point out a different one with analog to counter, so chose your artifacts.

Some matter more than others . To me, if I don't hear it, it doesn't matter. If others do, I suppose it does.

Mapman, the in-harmonic issue is easily demonstrated. I have to admit I was shocked the first time it was demonstrated to me. You take a sine wave sweep tone and play it back- listen for the 'birdies'.

If your not hearing the brightness of digital there are really only three explanations- either you have a high frequency rolloff in the system that complements the digital artifact or you have a high frequency rolloff in your ears. The third explanation is you have not heard a good analog playback on your system. Of the three, the latter is the most common- most people can hear digital artifacts just fine- I know someone who was deaf in one ear and 50% in the other and he had no problems discerning digital vs analog.

It is very common to hear really excellent digital recordings these days that make you wonder if they are finally there. The real question is, no matter how good the digital, 'what would this have sounded like if an analog recording system was used?' For that I recommend to anyone to try it themselves, of course they might have a bit of a time chasing down the analog equipment :)

I run a recording studio so we see this sort of comparison all the time. I get asked, 'why do you have all this old analog crap?' all the time. I just sit them down and play the difference. They never leave with any questions.