Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[hopkins]

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 .

You really need to take time to digest what others have written before you reply...

Also, "liking" every post reduces the significance of the act, especially when you quote them afterwards and visibly miss the point, or contradict them. Just saying...

 

[AudioGod]

You really need to take time to digest what others have written before you reply...

Also, "liking" every post reduces the significance of the act, especially when you quote them afterwards and visibly miss the point, or contradict them. Just saying...

I've read his comment and agree with most of it , but have different conclusion
It actually doesn't take me long to digest stuff especially since it's more about the science and the facts for me (which can't be denied in this context, more dynamic range is more dynamic range )
I guess should stop liking comments then , Just tried to be nice.

 

[Al M.]

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 .

It's not quite that simple.

Yes, digital is, when it comes to the traditional things that were measured in the analog age, far superior in those measured parameters.

Yet digital was handicapped with new problems, like jitter, the deleterious effect of which in astonishingly minuscule quantities (as opposed to the psychoacoustically much more tolerable wow and flutter in analog) took some time to be fully recognized. There is also noise in computer audio, something still not as well understood as it should be, otherwise it would more easily be avoidable. Yet digital noise is very well audible and contributing to the impression of synthetic, rather than natural, sound, in a lot of computer audio.

Analog seems rather robust in its preservation of musical expression across its flaws, whereas digital is quite vulnerable. I still remember the days in the Nineties when proper rhythm & timing in digital was an elusive problem, but much more readily conveyed well by even modest vinyl playback (the foot tapping factor). Fortunately today's digital has largely overcome that problem (and my own digital rig plainly excels in rhythm & timing, hands down), but overall I think digital is remarkably susceptible to deterioration of the musical message if not great care is taken. When everything is properly in place, digital can be amazing, however.

So no, it's really not that simple when it comes to "technical superiority" of digital.

 

[RCanelas]

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 .

No one said digital isn't technically superior, on the contrary. It is a fact. But it has a context, and that makes a difference IMO.
No one said that vinyl is equal to digital or that it's limitations don't affect the sound. Or the opposite.

Obviously the sports car has a better engine, but if the road is an ancient cobble pavement that difference, although real and measurable, is irrelevant. It might just happen that the stiffer suspension and lower chassis set point actually mean the toyota has an advantage.

I would humbly take @hopkins advice and let things sink a bit before you reply. Might pave way for a more interesting discussion than just repeating that facts are facts and that's that and that there is nothing anyone can do because some superficial clickbait article said so and 120 is larger than 90 so that is that.

 

[Rexp]

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.

Yes, the interesting thing is why you an I can hear it, yet @hopkins can't.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Wow finally someone who agrees with me

Digital is on an another planet compared to vinyl.

I think digital is a different planet, not a better planet.

I believe they are in ways converging but definitely not there yet… and maybe/possibly never.

I’d add this is really the same situation with tubes and solid state amplification.

 

[Rexp]

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?

My point was rather that sound quality depends on the master, not a digital v analogue nor CD v Streaming thing.

 

[hopkins]

Yes, the interesting thing is why you an I can hear it, yet @hopkins can't.

I don't think PeterA realized that the vinyl version is NOT the recording of a speaker in a room.

In what universe would a crappy phone video of speakers in a poor room (show conditions) surpass a recording from a preamp's output? So the point is that the comparison is pointless.

Back to reality...

 

[the sound of Tao]

My point was rather that sound quality depends on the master, not a digital v analogue nor CD v Streaming thing.

The sound quality depends on everything. The performance, the recording, the format, the mastering, the room, the entire system, the listener.

No part of the process is without completely significant and experience changing consequence.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I don't think PeterA realized that the vinyl version is NOT the recording of a speaker in a room.

In what universe would a crappy phone video of speakers in a poor room (show conditions) surpass a recording from a preamp's output? So the point is that the comparison is pointless.

Back to reality...

Exactly… just a meaningless comparison.

 

[Rexp]

I don't think PeterA realized that the vinyl version is NOT the recording of a speaker in a room.

In what universe would a crappy phone video of speakers in a poor room (show conditions) surpass a recording from a preamp's output? So the point is that the comparison is pointless.

Back to reality...

Oh sorry, so you agree its better vs the room video just not as good as your Qobuz playback. Care to post a video of your Qobuz playback (can record from DAC so it's apples to apples)? Would be interested to compare.

 

[hopkins]

Oh sorry, so you agree its better vs the room video just not as good as your Qobuz playback. Care to post a video of your Qobuz playback (can record from DAC so it's apples to apples)? Would be interested to compare.

I compared your video (vinyl rip->phono preamp->recorder->YouTube->DAC->Headphones) to a version on Qobuz version (streaming->DAC->Headphones) and preferred the Qobuz version, which I think is the same mastering. Not terribly surprising.

I could record the output of my DAC, but would need a special cable, which I do not have.

 

[Rexp]

I compared your video (vinyl rip->phono preamp->recorder->YouTube->DAC->Headphones) to a version on Qobuz version (streaming->DAC->Headphones) and preferred the Qobuz version, which I think is the same mastering. Not terribly surprising. What would be the point of making another "in-room" video? You want me to compare the version of the audio show with a recording in my living room ? What for ?

You might want to think a little before angrily replying..

 

[hopkins]

You might want to think a little before angrily replying..

I actually edited my post while you were replying. I did misunderstand you - and corrected.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Oh sorry, so you agree its better vs the room video just not as good as your Qobuz playback. Care to post a video of your Qobuz playback (can record from DAC so it's apples to apples)? Would be interested to compare.

I’ve got plenty of recordings of a system of mine already on the forum. The reason I stopped posting videos a year back or more is because of the hopeless ways some people use them to play their agendas and their completely out of context observations. Used to be a fun thing. I wouldn’t waste time using your process of comparing. I’ve also made it clear my system is not the best version of digital so what do you learn in the context of this thread on what’s ultimately possible… and as I’ve said I believe best analogue trumps best digital and always has.

But if you’d like to post a video of your own in room recordings of both your digital and analogue to trial in your comparison knock yourself out… it may only show where you are at with your system, your analogue and your digital setup and your music taste… though I probably wouldn’t choose a crap recording as your benchmark as it doesn’t really tell that much but that’s up to you.

But it would be good if you’d have the courtesy to respond to my original question about your misuse of clearly skewed non-representative or misrepresentative examples of the formats and how non-conclusive your examples as evidence are.

 

[Rexp]

I’ve got plenty of recordings of a system of mine already on the forum. The reason I stopped posting videos a year back or more is because of the hopeless ways some people use them to play their agendas and their completely out of context observations. Used to be a fun thing. I wouldn’t waste time using your process of comparing. I’ve also made it clear my system is not the best version of digital so what do you learn in the context of this thread on what’s ultimately possible… and as I’ve said I believe best analogue trumps best digital and always has.

But if you’d like to post a video of your own in room recordings of both your digital and analogue to trial in your comparison knock yourself out… it may only show where you are at with your system, your analogue and your digital setup and your music taste… though I probably wouldn’t choose a crap recording as your benchmark as it doesn’t really tell that much but that’s up to you.

But it would be good if you’d have the courtesy to respond to my original question about your misuse of clearly skewed non-representative or misrepresentative examples of the formats and how non-conclusive your examples as evidence are.

LOL.I've told you already it's not a perfect comparison, the key question I asked folks was how does their Qobuz/Tidal playback compare to the needledrop. A question you still haven't answered.

 

[PeterA]

I don't think PeterA realized that the vinyl version is NOT the recording of a speaker in a room.

In what universe would a crappy phone video of speakers in a poor room (show conditions) surpass a recording from a preamp's output? So the point is that the comparison is pointless.

Back to reality...

yes I realized that. I assume that every time the camera is right on the turntable that it is a direct recording from the phono output. My point was that the two contexts were totally different and that it was difficult to make any kind of generalized comment about the two videos. I still have a clear preference for one over the other. That still holds whether or not one recording is out of speakers and the other is not.

 

[adrianywu]

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.

Yes, I agree with that assessment. Pure DSD always sounds better than hi res PCM the way we implement them. Double rate DSD is indistinguishable from the mic feed on our monitoring system. As we do mostly live performances, we tend to do very little editing, and so DSD works fine. PCM does have an advantage; there are plug-ins that add tape hiss, harmonics etc. to emulate analogue. Therefore, it is possible to make digital sound as good as analogue ! We don't need that as we always run a tape recorder in parallel.

 

[Rexp]

Yes, I agree with that assessment. Pure DSD always sounds better than hi res PCM the way we implement them. Double rate DSD is indistinguishable from the mic feed on our monitoring system. As we do mostly live performances, we tend to do very little editing, and so DSD works fine. PCM does have an advantage; there are plug-ins that add tape hiss, harmonics etc. to emulate analogue. Therefore, it is possible to make digital sound as good as analogue ! We don't need that as we always run a tape recorder in parallel.

Yet in your previous post you said you find your tape recordings more enjoyable. Is that down to the tape hiding some distortion created by the mics?

 

[adrianywu]

Yet in your previous post you said you find your tape recordings more enjoyable. Is that down to the tape hiding some distortion created by the mics?

My theory is that some tape hiss actually adds to the sense of spaciousness. One of our recordings had a low hiss from the AC system of the hall. They would not turn it off since it was in the summer. That recording actually sounded more spacious than usual on the DSD !