Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[AudioGod]

i'm as invested in digital as anyone, and i don't care about accuracy, i do care about elimination of digital distortion, as it's non musical and distracting. however, neither are as significant to musical rightness as how vinyl is more complete than digital. tape even more so. turns out complete is more significant in the issue of realism.

you can beat the drum of accurate at points in time, but it does not really have traction in the listening. and i love my digital.

Point is , in the recording studio the mastering engineer hears the recorded sound in a certain way
my goal as an audiophile is to hear it exactly like him, without adding or subtracting anything .
And that's only possible with digital where there's practically 0 loss of information.
On vinyl yeah it may sound nicer and more analog and musical but , what gives it that sound is added distortion and other limitations of the format .
Which is the opposite of my goal.

 

[AudioGod]

Forget what you love and preference. Some people actually think an analog source actually sounds more like real music and voices than does a digital source, given the same system. Which is format is more technically advanced may be the wrong question to ask. A better question in my opinion is: What format sounds closer to the original sound we are trying to reproduce?

The concept of accuracy depends on the goal you are trying to achieve and as such needs more explanation. I always thought the big question with digital during the early stages of its development was "how accurate is accurate enough?" Did someone not listen to the song "Tom's Diner" to determine that answer? And now MSB has just released new firmware (technology?) that improves it further.

Accuracy = hearing the recorded sound exactly like the mastering engineer heard it in the studio
Even if it doesn't sound as organic , musical etc as vinyl.
If the recording is bad I want to hear it
If the piano doesn't real I want to hear it.
I don't want the format to embellish the sound for me by adding distortion or by reducing the dynamic range and other stuff .

 

[PeterA]

Point is , in the recording studio the mastering engineer hears the recorded sound in a certain way
my goal as an audiophile is to hear it exactly like him, without adding or subtracting anything .
And that's only possible with digital where there's practically 0 loss of information.
On vinyl yeah it may sound nicer and more analog and musical but , what gives it that sound is added distortion and other limitations of the format .
Which is the opposite of my goal.

AudioGod, not everyone has the same goal as you do and therefore approaches the hobby in a different way. And it is not always about preference, or what sounds more "pleasing" or even technology, but also about what approach sounds most realistic to someone based on his perception.

 

[AudioGod]

AudioGod, not everyone has the same goal as you do and therefore approaches the hobby in a different way. And it is not always about preference, or what sounds more "pleasing" or even technology, but also about what approach sounds most realistic to someone based on his perception.

But do you want something to sound realistic even if it doesn't sound like that on the original recorded music ?
Or do you want to hear the recorded sound exactly like it is ?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Point is , in the recording studio the mastering engineer hears the recorded sound in a certain way
my goal as an audiophile is to hear it exactly like him, without adding or subtracting anything .

with rare exception, i have no interest in what today's pro audio guys do or say. they rarely know analog. and their priorities for sound are different than mine. and they are not setting my expectations. their viewpoints about analog are mostly wrong. they see it as a 'plug-in'. a tool. they can't see the forest for the trees. there are exceptions.

what i agree with, forgetting any digital-analog discussion, is for the simplest possible recording and mastering chain, and the best performances. i want as close to the native format as possible. whether digital or analog. one main reason why analog/vinyl is better for music than digital, is how music was recorded and mastered 45-70 years ago. and 90% of my vinyl was recorded at least 45 years ago.

so that whole 'Golden Age' recording chain and simple performance approach is what today's digital has to compete with, and mostly it just can't do that.

And that's only possible with digital where there's practically 0 loss of information.

you need to listen more to analog, and stop reading stuff. by far it's digital that has the sins of omission.

On vinyl yeah it may sound nicer and more analog and musical but , what gives it that sound is added distortion and other limitations of the format .
Which is the opposite of my goal.

i listen to digital and analog every day for hours for 30 years now. the truth jumps out at me and beats me over the head.

yes, digital is very good, but it's not better analog.

 

[dcathro]

You guys do realize that world peace is going to be accomplished before the question in this thread is answered

 

[hopkins]

Guess we hear different but we knew that already..

I think it's a question of what we focus on. I'm hearing a very light sound, a lot of reverb, and no details. What is it that you are hearing?

 

[Lagonda]

I'm seriously asking this .
Does anyone really think that vinyl ,.probably a 100 years old tech could be technically better Or equal to digital and especially hi-res files / streaming ?
You could love the sound of vinyl more , but no can claim it's a more accurate format .

Only the ones with good ears and a decent system !

 

[PeterA]

Here's a digital version from 2005 of Psycho Killer, from Talking Heads 77 album, played on a high end $100,000 system (starts 2min in) Below is a budget turntable playing the 2020 reissue. Anyone's digital rig make this digital version match or beat the vinyl?

That is quite a contrast. The cheap vinyl sounds much better to me at least. The problem is that the systems and rooms and set up are so different that it is hard to make any conclusions about vinyl vs. digital from these two examples. But yes, no contest here.

 

[PeterA]

I am asking you to play this track on Tidal/Qobuz and compare it to the vinyl recording on YouTube.
When I do this the vinyl rip easily wins.
IME no digital playback solution can fix these crappy masters found on streaming services.

Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. My audio buddy who is only digital, listens only to physical CDs in his system. No streaming. I have heard good sounding CD playback. Your critique is about streaming, not digital in general, right?

 

[PeterA]

Accuracy = hearing the recorded sound exactly like the mastering engineer heard it in the studio
Even if it doesn't sound as organic , musical etc as vinyl.
If the recording is bad I want to hear it
If the piano doesn't real I want to hear it.
I don't want the format to embellish the sound for me by adding distortion or by reducing the dynamic range and other stuff .

Thank you for telling us what you want to do and defining your goal. I understand what you mean by "accuracy" in this context. You will not be successful telling others what their goals should be. Ron came up with four or five "audiophile goals" for those on WBF who fit into one or some combination. You can search for that thread.

My goal is different from yours. I want what I hear in my living room to remind me of the experience I have when listening to live music. It is challenging and often elusive. How closely the end result matches what some engineer heard in his studio is secondary to me. If I wanted that, I would choose the engineer, and I would build a replica of his studio and play what he played. And I would have to assume we have the same sensibilities. Tough challenge there.

 

[PeterA]

But do you want something to sound realistic even if it doesn't sound like that on the original recorded music ?
Or do you want to hear the recorded sound exactly like it is ?

Is it even possible to know what it sounded like on the original recorded music without playing the music through some replay system in some room? It will never be exact, even if you knew what that is.

I have heard a lot of digital presentations. They all sound different, just like analog presentations do.

 

[RCanelas]

Point is , in the recording studio the mastering engineer hears the recorded sound in a certain way
my goal as an audiophile is to hear it exactly like him, without adding or subtracting anything .
And that's only possible with digital where there's practically 0 loss of information.
On vinyl yeah it may sound nicer and more analog and musical but , what gives it that sound is added distortion and other limitations of the format .
Which is the opposite of my goal.

Exact reproduction is a noble goal, but many have argued (and I'm of that school) that it is an impossible goal. Toole named a perspective on this problem "the circle of confusion".

The only way for you to listen to what the engineer intended to is to be in the room with him. More than that, you need to be him. Be in his spot, share his physiological conditions and according to psychoacoustics, even his state of mind at the moment. Assuming the last few would render negligible differences (no reason to, but we can for now), you'd need to at least be in the room. A different room, with different gear gets you a different sound.

For me, this places the whole "hear it exactly like him, without adding or subtracting anything" on the "impossible" section of goals. I don't even know what that "exactly like" is, how do I know how to get there? Of course there are objectively better paths. Less linear and harmonic distortion, better phase response, better impulse response. But even if we max all of those stats, we're still just moving on the grey area, we can't attain the goal because we are lost in the circle of confusion.

You can set another set of goals, and you don't even need to bend too much for them to be compatible: you can strive for accuracy and emotion at the same time. If you do, vinyl is not a bad format, just different from whatever digital representation you might prefer at the moment.

We could also discuss about the validity of the "practically 0 loss of information" of a digital format. Might be true of the format, but is it true of the chain used to encode and render the information of that format? If not true, we just created another circle of confusion. And of course we have, as this discussion is proof of

 

[thedudeabides]

This is the same argument, the same diatribe that seems to happen on this (and other forums) time and time again.
.

Indeed. Question is why. I would love to hear an explanation. Seems to me to be obsessive / compulsive behavior but what do I know. I just enjoy listening to music.

Both formats have their pluses and minuses but people seem to forget the message and focus on the messenger. Very sad / ironic.

 

[Al M.]

Exact reproduction is a noble goal, but many have argued (and I'm of that school) that it is an impossible goal. Toole named a perspective on this problem "the circle of confusion".

The only way for you to listen to what the engineer intended to is to be in the room with him. More than that, you need to be him. Be in his spot, share his physiological conditions and according to psychoacoustics, even his state of mind at the moment. Assuming the last few would render negligible differences (no reason to, but we can for now), you'd need to at least be in the room. A different room, with different gear gets you a different sound.

For me, this places the whole "hear it exactly like him, without adding or subtracting anything" on the "impossible" section of goals. I don't even know what that "exactly like" is, how do I know how to get there? Of course there are objectively better paths. Less linear and harmonic distortion, better phase response, better impulse response. But even if we max all of those stats, we're still just moving on the grey area, we can't attain the goal because we are lost in the circle of confusion.

You can set another set of goals, and you don't even need to bend too much for them to be compatible: you can strive for accuracy and emotion at the same time. If you do, vinyl is not a bad format, just different from whatever digital representation you might prefer at the moment.

We could also discuss about the validity of the "practically 0 loss of information" of a digital format. Might be true of the format, but is it true of the chain used to encode and render the information of that format? If not true, we just created another circle of confusion. And of course we have, as this discussion is proof of

You nailed it. Game over.

A highly enlightening link with regard to the "Circle of Confusion" is this:

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

Just look at the graph with widely different in-room (control room) responses of the same speaker at different locations.

 

[hopkins]

That is quite a contrast. The cheap vinyl sounds much better to me at least. The problem is that the systems and rooms and set up are so different that it is hard to make any conclusions about vinyl vs. digital from these two examples. But yes, no contest here.

You are listening on one hand to a (poor) in-room recording and on the other to a rip (so no speaker/room involved).

Instead, you can compare the vinyl rip to a CD version - on a streaming service if you don't have the CD. Here is one version on YouTube:

Here is the track on Qobuz: https://open.qobuz.com/track/6008183

After comparing the vinyl rip (posted by Rexp) with either version - using Sennheiser HD6XX headphones plugged in to a DAC/Amp (ECDesigns powerDAC-R) - there is no question that you lose a lot of detail in the vinyl rip, and IN THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, I don't see what the vinyl "brings to the table". Perhaps this is due to the equipment used (turntable, phono stage/preamp, recorder...). It pretty much sounds like the same mastering, but I only played the intro.

In any event, we are comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[wil]

Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. My audio buddy who is only digital, listens only to physical CDs in his system. No streaming. I have heard good sounding CD playback. Your critique is about streaming, not digital in general, right?

That’s an over simplification. Streaming, done right, is very, very good. CD is not, in and of itself, better. In an optimized set up, it all comes down to the particular mastering as to what sounds better than whatever.

Golden age vinyl/tape may be the creme de la creme in sound quality.

Given the choice between only golden age recordings and the wide world of music available through streaming, this music omnivore is happily discovering and listening to thousands of very good sounding albums culled from the steamed catalog.

 

[PeterA]

That’s an over simplification. Streaming, done right, is very, very good. CD is not, in and of itself, better. In an optimized set up, it all comes down to the particular mastering as to what sounds better than whatever.

Golden age vinyl/tape may be the creme de la creme in sound quality.

Given the choice between only golden age recordings and the wide world of music available through streaming, this music omnivore is happily discovering and listening to thousands of very good sounding albums culled from the steamed catalog.

Yes, we all have different approaches and values.

I am curious, do you think the same exact mastering will sound the same on CD and when streamed, or is one inherently better sounding? Or, like everything else, does it depend?

 

[hopkins]

That’s an over simplification. Streaming, done right, is very, very good. CD is not, in and of itself, better. In an optimized set up, it all comes down to the particular mastering as to what sounds better than whatever.

Golden age vinyl/tape may be the creme de la creme in sound quality.

Given the choice between only golden age recordings and the wide world of music available through streaming, this music omnivore is happily discovering and listening to thousands of very good sounding albums culled from the steamed catalog.

+1.

The only difference between "streaming" and "CD" should be the album versions (mastering). There are many examples where the only version available on streaming is an inferior mastering/release. Here is one - Oscar Petersons' We Get Requests:

Qobuz version:

https://storage.googleapis.com/cloudplayer/samples/01.%20Oscar%20Peterson%20-%20Quiet%20Nights%20Of%20Quiet%20Stars%20(Corcovado).flac

Another CD version (only one where "Corcovado" is track 4 not 1):

https://storage.googleapis.com/cloudplayer/samples/04%20Corcovado.flac

A little different...

 

[AudioGod]