Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Mike Lavigne]

hey @AudioGod, i think you should ditch soundguys.com as any sort of reference for your musical reproduction truth. i'm sure they are nice guys and well meaning, but nothing approaching any sort of authority on anything other than having a slick website. they focus on mid fi gear to be generous. the world needs sites like soundguys.com. however, they don't cut it for high end audio help.

you can do better.

 

[AudioGod]

hey @AudioGod, i think you should ditch soundguys.com as any sort of reference for your musical reproduction truth. i'm sure they are nice guys and well meaning, but nothing approaching any sort of authority on anything other than having a slick website. they focus on mid fi gear to be generous. the world needs sites like soundguys.com. however, they don't cut it for high end audio help.

you can do better.

View attachment 119951

From the DVD website
It really doesn't matter what is the source of the info .
The numbers are the same.

 

[Zeotrope]

Dynamic range is irrelevant, really. I actually think it's more like 80dB for records - which is more than enough. Think about it - given peaks of 105dB (which most systems cannot even reproduce without distortion), you have a range of 25-105dB. Normal background "noise" in a quiet room is about 30dB. So you don't need more than 70dB.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

From the DVD website
It really doesn't matter what is the source of the info .
The numbers are the same.

but numbers don't mean squat. music is art, it's listening. not an engineering exam.

i'd say you are on the wrong website. you need Audio Science Review. they will talk your language. and no worries. this is just a hobby. here you will just bang your number loving head against the wall.

here we are always listeners first. numbers can help, they are data points to consider, but are never the truth. listening is the truth.

 

[Zeotrope]

but numbers don't mean squat. music is art, it's listening. not an engineering exam.

i'd say you are on the wrong website. you need Audio Science Review. they will talk your language. and no worries. this is just a hobby. here you will just bang your number loving head against the wall.

here we are always listeners first. numbers can help, they are data points to consider, but are never the truth. listening is the truth.

Don’t get me started about ASR! They should call it Audio pseudo-Science Review. Amir’s analyses wouldn’t pass a grade school science test.
They start from the end - their intended belief that high end audio is a waste of money. Specs rule, etc. They then manipulate data to force fit the results to validate their assumption — completely backwards.

 

[AudioGod]

but numbers don't mean squat. music is art, it's listening. not an engineering exam.

i'd say you are on the wrong website. you need Audio Science Review. they will talk your language. and no worries. this is just a hobby. here you will just bang your number loving head against the wall.

here we are always listeners first. numbers can help, they are data points to consider, but are never the truth. listening is the truth.

Lol
I'm over there too .
Anyways the numbers and science can't be ignored in my opinion .
Obviously we can choose to ignore all the science and numbers in the world and just enjoy the sound we like.
But I don't think it's the correct way to do things in this hobby.

 

[AudioGod]

Don’t get me started about ASR! They should call it Audio pseudo-Science Review. Amir’s analyses wouldn’t pass a grade school science test.
They start from the end - their intended belief that high end audio is a waste of money. Specs rule, etc. They then manipulate data to force fit the results to validate their assumption — completely backwards.

ASR claims exactly the same about hi end forums .

 

[Zeotrope]

Lol
I'm over there too .
Anyways the numbers and science can't be ignored in my opinion .
Obviously we can choose to ignore all the science and numbers in the world and just enjoy the sound we like.
But I don't think it's the correct way to do things in this hobby.

No one is ignoring the science- just telling you these particular stats are irrelevant

 

[Zeotrope]

ASR claims exactly the same about hi end forums .

I don’t see any THD, SNR, and other graphs and charts here, do you?
If you just trust your ears, you’ll hear the difference.

 

[chuck]

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.

At the 2022 Capital Audio Fest I attended a talk by the recording engineers responsible for the Patricia Barber recordings, Ulrike Schwartz and Jim Anderson. They record using both analog tape and digital. The albums are released on all analog chain vinyl and on digital hi res DXD. I asked them which recording method was superior. They responded, hands down, digital DXD is the best and the digital hi res downloads are the best quality. Pure DSD would be better but you can't edit it.

At this year's CAF, I attended a talk by the Hazelrigg Brothers, musicians who record and release their own records. They said the same thing, digital is superior to analog and the best is DSD. They also said the Sonoma DSD workstation was the best because it allows editing in DSD, but that Sony ordered almost all Sonoma Workstations destroyed when they bailed on the SACD format, only a few still exist. Next best is recording in DSD, convert to PCM for editing and then back to DSD (DXD).

On my system, modern hi res digital sounds better than analog. For example, I have the newly released DG TOS Kleiber/Vienna Beethoven 7th vinyl. It is the best classical record I have heard, it sounds great. Compared to the SFS Beethoven 7th on SACD, the SACD sounds better -- clearer, more detail, better DR.

 

[Ron Resnick]

At the 2022 Capital Audio Fest I attended a talk by the recording engineers responsible for the Patricia Barber recordings, Ulrike Schwartz and Jim Anderson. They record using both analog tape and digital. The albums are released on all analog chain vinyl and on digital hi res DXD. I asked them which recording method was superior. They responded, hands down, digital DXD is the best and the digital hi res downloads are the best quality.

What is their metric or criteria for "superior," "best" and "best quality"?

Pure DSD would be better but you can't edit it.

At this year's CAF, I attended a talk by the Hazelrigg Brothers, musicians who record and release their own records. They said the same thing, digital is superior to analog and the best is DSD.

In what way(s) is digital "superior."

On my system, modern hi res digital sounds better than analog.

"Better" in what way(s)?

(Please know that I'm not picking on you, Chuck. You know I ask this kind of question whenever somebody simply declares something "better" with zero explanation or definition or meaning or context behind it.)

 

[Mike Lavigne]

At the 2022 Capital Audio Fest I attended a talk by the recording engineers responsible for the Patricia Barber recordings, Ulrike Schwartz and Jim Anderson. They record using both analog tape and digital. The albums are released on all analog chain vinyl and on digital hi res DXD. I asked them which recording method was superior. They responded, hands down, digital DXD is the best and the digital hi res downloads are the best quality. Pure DSD would be better but you can't edit it.

At this year's CAF, I attended a talk by the Hazelrigg Brothers, musicians who record and release their own records. They said the same thing, digital is superior to analog and the best is DSD. They also said the Sonoma DSD workstation was the best because it allows editing in DSD, but that Sony ordered almost all Sonoma Workstations destroyed when they bailed on the SACD format, only a few still exist. Next best is recording in DSD, convert to PCM for editing and then back to DSD (DXD).

On my system, modern hi res digital sounds better than analog. For example, I have the newly released DG TOS Kleiber/Vienna Beethoven 7th vinyl. It is the best classical record I have heard, it sounds great. Compared to the SFS Beethoven 7th on SACD, the SACD sounds better -- clearer, more detail, better DR.

i will agree that DXD is the tip top of digital, pure native dsd256 is equally as good and slightly different, if much more rare.

the problem with musicians/pro audio guys is their analog playback gear is second (or third) rate. i've had pro guys in my room hearing high level vinyl for the first time and their comments; "i had no idea!". of course. they thought they knew what it could do, but they did not. even tape decks with stock 80's solid state output electronics of questionable condition don't tell the whole story.

takes a commitment to represent state of the art. and compare each format at it's best.

 

[AudioGod]

At the 2022 Capital Audio Fest I attended a talk by the recording engineers responsible for the Patricia Barber recordings, Ulrike Schwartz and Jim Anderson. They record using both analog tape and digital. The albums are released on all analog chain vinyl and on digital hi res DXD. I asked them which recording method was superior. They responded, hands down, digital DXD is the best and the digital hi res downloads are the best quality. Pure DSD would be better but you can't edit it.

At this year's CAF, I attended a talk by the Hazelrigg Brothers, musicians who record and release their own records. They said the same thing, digital is superior to analog and the best is DSD. They also said the Sonoma DSD workstation was the best because it allows editing in DSD, but that Sony ordered almost all Sonoma Workstations destroyed when they bailed on the SACD format, only a few still exist. Next best is recording in DSD, convert to PCM for editing and then back to DSD (DXD).

On my system, modern hi res digital sounds better than analog. For example, I have the newly released DG TOS Kleiber/Vienna Beethoven 7th vinyl. It is the best classical record I have heard, it sounds great. Compared to the SFS Beethoven 7th on SACD, the SACD sounds better -- clearer, more detail, better DR.

Wow finally someone who agrees with me

Digital is on a another planet compared to vinyl.

 

[Zeotrope]

the problem with musicians/pro audio guys is their analog playback gear is second (or third) rate.

And this is the root cause of why digital does Not sound as close to live music as analog: the A to D encoders are not at the level of what we have in the home audio world (e.g., Taiko Extreme and high-end DACs). Even if the pro equipment does improve, you still have to content with the format conversion (to D and back to A), which I think means digital will never match analog…

You have to remember that the “pro” world has different objectives than the high end audio world. A sound engineer is doing a job, and could very well prefer a platform that is easier and faster to use. I’m sure it’s easier to master in digital than in analog. They engineers could very well prefer it for this reason.

 

[PeterA]

i will agree that DXD is the tip top of digital, pure native dsd256 is equally as good and slightly different, if much more rare.

the problem with musicians/pro audio guys is their analog playback gear is second (or third) rate. i've had pro guys in my room hearing high level vinyl for the first time and their comments; "i had no idea!". of course. they thought they knew what it could do, but they did not. even tape decks with stock 80's solid state output electronics of questionable condition don't tell the whole story.

takes a commitment to represent state of the art. and compare each format at it's best.

Mike, That reminds me of a conversation I had recently about whether or not the golden era recording engineers ever heard what their great recordings were truly capable of sounding like.

 

[hopkins]

At the 2022 Capital Audio Fest I attended a talk by the recording engineers responsible for the Patricia Barber recordings, Ulrike Schwartz and Jim Anderson. They record using both analog tape and digital. The albums are released on all analog chain vinyl and on digital hi res DXD. I asked them which recording method was superior. They responded, hands down, digital DXD is the best and the digital hi res downloads are the best quality. Pure DSD would be better but you can't edit it.

Good example The album "Higher" they worked on does not sound great, IMO:

No, YouTube is not responsible for the bad sound!

Some of her early albums, especially those recorded live, sounded much better.

 

[RCanelas]

Wow finally someone who agrees with me

Digital is on a another planet compared to vinyl.

Oh I agree with you, alas on the premises, not the conclusions.

High-res digital is faster, more ergonomic and better at every objective metric. It is simpler to produce, distribute and reproduce. It is cheaper to work with. It allows for a lot that analog methods struggle with.

But this says nothing about the perception of quality at the final reproduction stage, and that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't mean that we can find the best music in natively digital formats. That every digital recording is better than analog recordings. That certain types of distortions don't actually improve music perception. That the lack of noise is a good thing. etc.

Confusing the premises with the conclusions is very, very weird in this case.

Please notice that I haven't taken a camp in this analog/digital debate. I see both as essentially the same, from a first principles pov. Since we still have microphones and mixing processes, what we are debating are just encoding/decoding methods for information that is already synthesized, and their second order effects on our perception of the music. Even in exceptional recordings, the damage is already done. The best mic in the world has about 15 bits dynamic resolution on a good day, within the capabilities of good vinyl, so that's not the limiting factor as far as I'm concerned. Anybody that has heard half decent vinyl knows it has no dynamic range, channel separation or the issues typically people list as obvious advantages for digital, with the exception of noise. After the mixing process those 15 (at best) bits are decimated into oblivion, so having a 32 bit capable distribution format is just a marketing gimmick.

I'm not too fond of people dissing on any of these formats as the only thing it shows is that they haven't heard them properly. If you did, you wouldn't be so quick in naming a superior solution because you'd recognize the amount of nuance at play here.

This coming from a guy that makes DACs.

 

[Al M.]

I'm not too fond of people dissing on any of these formats as the only thing it shows is that they haven't heard them properly.

I think that's what it comes down to in these debates.

Most fundamentalist pro-digital guys haven't heard proper analog (needs care in setup and selection of pressings, as well as a certain level of gear).

Most fundamentalist pro-analog guys haven't heard proper digital (digital can sound great, but is really easy to screw up before it gets there)..

It's that simple, really.

***

Great rest of your post, too.

 

[AudioGod]

Oh I agree with you, alas on the premises, not the conclusions.

High-res digital is faster, more ergonomic and better at every objective metric. It is simpler to produce, distribute and reproduce. It is cheaper to work with. It allows for a lot that analog methods struggle with.

But this says nothing about the perception of quality at the final reproduction stage, and that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't mean that we can find the best music in natively digital formats. That every digital recording is better than analog recordings. That certain types of distortions don't actually improve music perception. That the lack of noise is a good thing. etc.

Confusing the premises with the conclusions is very, very weird in this case.

Please notice that I haven't taken a camp in this analog/digital debate. I see both as essentially the same, from a first principles pov. Since we still have microphones and mixing processes, what we are debating are just encoding/decoding methods for information that is already synthesized, and their second order effects on our perception of the music. Even in exceptional recordings, the damage is already done. The best mic in the world has about 15 bits dynamic resolution on a good day, within the capabilities of good vinyl, so that's not the limiting factor as far as I'm concerned. Anybody that has heard half decent vinyl knows it has no dynamic range, channel separation or the issues typically people list as obvious advantages for digital, with the exception of noise. After the mixing process those 15 (at best) bits are decimated into oblivion, so having a 32 bit capable distribution format is just a marketing gimmick.

I'm not too fond of people dissing on any of these formats as the only thing it shows is that they haven't heard them properly. If you did, you wouldn't be so quick in naming a superior solution because you'd recognize the amount of nuance at play here.

This coming from a guy that makes DACs.

Not exactly , digital is a far superior format technically than vinyl .
That's a scientific fact no one can deny .
Liking the vinyl sound over digital is obviously more than legitimate.
But saying that vinyl is equal to digital technically or that vinyl's technical limitations dont effect the sound , is ridiculous .
Like no one can claim a Toyota Corolla's engine is technically better than a Ferrari 458 engine .

 

[Carlos269]

i will agree that DXD is the tip top of digital, pure native dsd256 is equally as good and slightly different, if much more rare.

the problem with musicians/pro audio guys is their analog playback gear is second (or third) rate. i've had pro guys in my room hearing high level vinyl for the first time and their comments; "i had no idea!". of course. they thought they knew what it could do, but they did not. even tape decks with stock 80's solid state output electronics of questionable condition don't tell the whole story.

takes a commitment to represent state of the art. and compare each format at it's best.

And this is the root cause of why digital does Not sound as close to live music as analog: the A to D encoders are not at the level of what we have in the home audio world (e.g., Taiko Extreme and high-end DACs). Even if the pro equipment does improve, you still have to content with the format conversion (to D and back to A), which I think means digital will never match analog…

You have to remember that the “pro” world has different objectives than the high end audio world. A sound engineer is doing a job, and could very well prefer a platform that is easier and faster to use. I’m sure it’s easier to master in digital than in analog. They engineers could very well prefer it for this reason.

Mike, That reminds me of a conversation I had recently about whether or not the golden era recording engineers ever heard what their great recordings were truly capable of sounding like.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. In general, the electrical circuit designs and electronics in high-end audio are rudimentary and well known. The high-end “Pro” engineers are designing and implementing advanced and complex circuits and electronics that marry psychoacoustics and high resolution audio reproduction to a degree that high end audio cannot approach. In other words, the “pro” guys are a lot more knowledgeable and are subject matter experts in areas well beyond basic amplification.

I see that most here have not yet figured it out that most of the sound of vinyl is due to its source, magnetic tape. Sure vinyl playback adds its own distortions but in general that “vinyl” sound is the flawed sound of magnetic tape that is embedded in each and every recording sourced from tape. Otherwise wouldn’t you think that digitally sourced vinyl would sound just as good if vinyl playback was the special ingredient?????

For those that think that magnetic tape is the holy-grail……let me remind you: The frequency response of magnetic tape is between 30 Hz and 15 kHz and the dynamic range of magnetic tape is 55 dB. Vinyl playback simply cannot overcome those limitations as they are the source material. Furthermore magnetic tape recording and playback has other issues:


Magnetic Analog Tape Recording and Playback

It is starting to become clearer to some of you that the most dominant factor in sound quality is the mastering and has very little to do with format or playback equipment. I myself have equipment in all different topologies and designs and with great recordings they all sound great.

Regarding the “Pros” having second or third rate equipment, don’t be so quick to judge. The high-end mastering world simply have the best of the best equipment at their disposal and have equipment most high-end audiophiles can’t even fathom.

If you can adjust the mastering to your preferences or what you perceive in your mind is “what it should sound like” then by definition you have achieved the objective. There is no reason to struggle and strive as there are tools that allow us to simply dial in the resultant sound that is being strived for or “ideal”, in our mind. The problem has been solved so there is no need to wonder anymore what it would be like if we were to have it sound like “we” think it should. Ironically to this discussion, this can be accomplished through an all digital chain, an all analog chain, or through a hybrid solution. You don’t have to be the smartest guy in the room to realize that technologies and mastering techniques have progressed beyond panning and adding reverb. I suggest that you read up on mastering and you will find a brave new world.