Done with digital

[Al M.]

Walked into a record store recently and it was abuzz. But I didn't see any audiophiles there. Just normal people buying records.

Most of which are digital sourced. Just sayin'.

 

[bryans]

Walked into a record store recently and it was abuzz. But I didn't see any audiophiles there. Just normal people buying records.

What percentage of records out there are decent recordings that audiophiles would enjoy?

1%?
5% ?
25%?

Other?

OK I have to ask, how can you tell the difference between audiophiles and normal people?

Actually i'm glad the record store was abuzz with anyone. Heck I even love seeing LPs for sale at Walmart and Target.

I know my daughter (24) and her friends love vinyl. She actually convinced me to pull out my old collection.

 

[Al M.]

OK I have to ask, how can you tell the difference between audiophiles and normal people?

As we already know from some posters, headphone listeners are not "real" audiophiles

 

[SoundMann]

I am wondering if the detractors of digital ever got the most out of it.

My main problem with digital outside of being sensitive to its noise artifacts is that it sounds too artificial.

 

[SoundMann]

Yes, he also spammed AudioShark.

No. I meant this as a serious discussion

 

[Al M.]

My main problem with digital outside of being sensitive to its noise artifacts is that it sounds too artificial.

And I pointed out that a lot of digital sounds artificial to me too, especially computer-audio based digital (even though, as I emphasized, that can be done right, but that is not often the case, in my experience).

So yes, I don't disagree with you in that sense, there is lots of artificial sounding digital. If you say that all digital sounds artificial, I do have to disagree with you.

 

[Audire]

I am done with digital. After having suffered thru every digital format available over the years, and never liking the sound of any of it, I am putting all my time, money and effort into my analog front-ends (turntable and tapedeck).

How many of you have a similar story to tell?

I feel your pain. If I didn’t have a bad back I’d be done with it as well. Analogue is so much better - supreme in my opinion. But because of medical issues I decided to maximize as much as I could both our TT and digital.

But my amps will remain digital. Hopefully, will upgrade amps soon - choices: EMM MTRX, Gryphon Antileon EVO, or Pass 600.8s (or XA100.8s).

 

[SoundMann]

And I pointed out that a lot of digital sounds artificial to me too, especially computer-audio based digital (even though, as I emphasized, that can be done right, but that is not often the case, in my experience).

So yes, I don't disagree with you in that sense, there is lots of artificial sounding digital. If you say that all digital sounds artificial, I do have to disagree with you.

The Zanden 5000 is the least artificial sounding dac that I have heard. But I can't afford it.

 

[Atmasphere]

Most of which are digital sourced. Just sayin'.

Keep in mind that a digital source for an LP is likely not the same as the one used for the digital release. When we were doing an LP master, we would request a source file that didn't have all the DSP stuff in it; in particular compression. In this way we could cut a better sounding LP, since the digital release is often compressed due to the expectation it will be played in a car.

 

[Al M.]

Keep in mind that a digital source for an LP is likely not the same as the one used for the digital release. When we were doing an LP master, we would request a source file that didn't have all the DSP stuff in it; in particular compression. In this way we could cut a better sounding LP, since the digital release is often compressed due to the expectation it will be played in a car.

You mean pop and rock mainly, I suppose. Classical and jazz are rarely compressed to a significant degree on digital. Large orchestral in fact is more likely to be compressed on vinyl (unless it's 45 rpm reissues).

There is a good amount of rock that is great on digital too. For example, the 2011 digital remasters of Pink Floyd by James Guthrie, their long-term recording engineer since 1978, are excellent.

 

[Atmasphere]

You mean pop and rock mainly, I suppose. Classical and jazz are rarely compressed to a significant degree on digital. Large orchestral in fact is more likely to be compressed on vinyl (unless it's 45 rpm reissues).

There is a good amount of rock that is great on digital too. For example, the 2011 digital remasters of Pink Floyd by James Guthrie, their long-term recording engineer since 1978, are excellent.

Classical too, although less so. The only reason to compress classical music on LP is the engineering time is expensive. But if a first rate result is desired, there's no need to compress on LP. It has much wider range than most take it for. But to get that, you have to spend time with the project and cut test tracks of the tricky bits to see if they will play. That takes time and at attorney's rates labels take the engineering time seriously.

 

[Al M.]

Classical too, although less so. The only reason to compress classical music on LP is the engineering time is expensive. But if a first rate result is desired, there's no need to compress on LP. It has much wider range than most take it for. But to get that, you have to spend time with the project and cut test tracks of the tricky bits to see if they will play. That takes time and at attorney's rates labels take the engineering time seriously.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. I've heard 33 rpm audiophile reissues of large orchestral that were compressed too. I guess the point of an audiophile reissue is that the engineer takes time to get it right, but perhaps not .

As I said, 45 rpm reissues are a different story.

It will also depend on the 33 rpm length per side. Twenty minutes may be more manageable than 20 + minutes as found on many originals (and reissues).

 

[astrotoy]

OK I have to ask, how can you tell the difference between audiophiles and normal people?

Actually i'm glad the record store was abuzz with anyone. Heck I even love seeing LPs for sale at Walmart and Target.

I know my daughter (24) and her friends love vinyl. She actually convinced me to pull out my old collection.

Audiophile - Identify by age, gender, and body type.

Larry

 

[Atmasphere]

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. I've heard 33 rpm audiophile reissues of large orchestral that were compressed too. I guess the point of an audiophile reissue is that the engineer takes time to get it right, but perhaps not .

As I said, 45 rpm reissues are a different story.

It will also depend on the 33 rpm length per side. Twenty minutes may be more manageable than 20 + minutes as found on many originals (and reissues).

Just say'n. A lot of my misconceptions of the LP format died an ugly death after I got my Scully lathe up and running.

 

[Lee]

I've always tried to be as neutral as Switzerland on formats. I play LP, CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, Bluray, and tape. All formats can sound good except 8-track and cassette.

Sometimes I want the very best mastering and so having both digital and analog is a wise move.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Vinyl's dirty little secret is that it is dependent on great pressings, and there are many pressings out there that aren't (even from the heyday of vinyl). That narrows the selection that I truly can enjoy considerably.

And yes, you can get great sound at much lower prices from digital than from a turntable. The vinyl sound at its best that really would interest me is outrageously expensive to attain.

Hi Al,

I think the vinyl people would give you a lot of pushback on your claim about that dirty little secret. I, for one, do not believe that the emotionally-engaging sound of vinyl depends on great (i.e., expensive) pressings. I think plenty of audiophile-label reissues also make the grade.

I think vinyl people would also counter that, in their view, it is easier to get emotionally-engaging sound with a modest vinyl replay set-up than it is with a modest digital replay set-up.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Al,

I think the vinyl people would give you a lot of pushback on your claim about that dirty little secret. I, for one, do not believe that the emotionally-engaging sound of vinyl depends on great (i.e., expensive) pressings. I think plenty of audiophile-label reissues also make the grade.

I think vinyl people would also counter that, in their view, it is easier to get emotionally-engaging sound with a modest vinyl replay set-up than it is with a modest digital replay set-up.

Ron, I agree. Vinyl does not need to be great, expensive or audiophile-label reissues to be good. I enjoy tremendously plain old average LPs. I have lots of them and they are not fancy. They tend to be older, and earlier pressings, but nothing special, just great music and a lot of fun. This is touched on in Jeff Day's wonderful essay about expanding the listening window, but it is more about assembling a system that can play all sorts of recordings. In my view, a good system should sound good on a vast variety of LPs, and not just the best pressings.

I emphatically disagree that this is vinyl's "dirty little secret". Ask any collector. If it were true, people would not have huge record collections.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, vinyl does not need to be great, expensive or audiophile-label reissues to be good.

I completely agree. Where did I write that plain, average LPs are bad?

 

[bonzo75]

Ron, vinyl does not need to be great, expensive or audiophile-label reissues to be good. I enjoy tremendously plain old average LPs. I have lots of them and they are not fancy. They tend to be older, and earlier pressings, but nothing special, just great music and a lot of fun. This is touched on in Jeff Day's wonderful essay about expanding the listening window, but it is more about assembling a system that can play all sorts of recordings. In my view, a good system should sound good on a vast variety of LPs, and not just the best pressings.

I emphatically disagree that this is vinyl's "dirty little secret". Ask any collector. If it were true, people would not have huge record collections.

Vinyl accessories, discovery costs, and the inevitable audiophile changes make it quite costly. I think to tell a beginner that oh, just buy a garrard or TD 124, add an SME and SPU, and but 1 quid LPs that's it, is just being dishonest. That then comes with record cleaners, various other cleaners, measurers, changes, increasing LPs costs, and compares.

For any normal audiophile, curiosity comes with the territory and in most cases itch for digital due to its portability and easier plug play can be more easily scratched while for analog it becomes too costly. Analog costs invariably end up more than the rest of the system costs. This is quite common.

Most analog people here only change their analog components, most of their remaining system remains untouched or has minor changes.

 

[tima]

The OP told us about dedicating his stereo listening to records and that he no longer intends to use digital as a source. He asked if there were others who made a similar switch. I don't know him but I don't think he was asking people to defend their preferred format, just if they had similar experiences about why they switched.