Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Mike Lavigne]

Any reason for you not to reach out to the moderators to find out if surveys are permitted? If they are then you're in the position to create one, put it out, see how many responses you get, compile and publish the results.

the thread starter screen at the start of each sub forum contains an easy to follow template (select 'poll') to establish a poll/survey.

no restrictions other than common sense. traditionally polls here don't seem to sustain very long (think herding cats), so don't take participation personally. there is a good reason you see very few polls here.

 

[facten]

the thread starter screen at the start of each sub forum contains an easy to follow template to establish a poll/survey.

no restrictions other than common sense. traditionally polls here don't seem to sustain very long (think herding cats), so don't take participation personally.

Given I am not the one interested in creating a survey I'll take nothing personally , but good that you posted so if PYP wants to start one he has the route

 

[Kingrex]

I What is the best tooth paste?

Crest.

this hobby isn't a foot race. If it is, the swagger makes me think there are many former sprinters here.

No sprinters on this forum. All hardcore endurance athletes dug in for the long haul.

 

[PYP]

Given I am not the one interested in creating a survey I'll take nothing personally , but good that you posted so if PYP wants to start one he has the route

I thought of my initial post as an informal way of asking if anyone was interested. Seems like little to no interest. @Mike Lavigne suggests one reason.

no restrictions other than common sense. traditionally polls here don't seem to sustain very long (think herding cats), so don't take participation personally. there is a good reason you see very few polls here.

that is a pretty big restriction when we are talking about the audiophile world.

 

[PYP]

Crest.

Two follow-on questions:
Which one? There are several versions.
Even if it cost $500 per tube?

 

[wil]

I have read a few listening "tests" where the majority of people prefer the sound of vinyl (I posted one from a company which designs/manufacturers digital products: https://www.grimmaudio.com/blogs/vinyl-versus-digital/ ) This isn't proof per se since one can nitpick the setups that are compared, but I believe the results are conclusive.

Science seems to tell us that the distortions of vinyl are friendly to the ear and preferred to digital distortions in a majority of people (if that isn't true, please post links that show the opposite).

But, we all do hear differently. Is that the result of the shape of our ears (unique to each person), how our brains are configured or genetics? Science doesn't know that yet (at least I haven't read about it).

I write the above as a digital-only listener who had vinyl many, many years ago in a mid-fi system. So, why do I settle for digital? Because once the distortion is low enough (and that includes distortion delivered via electric outlet, other equipment in the setup, ethernet/network, vibration, room interactions) my ear/brain hears lovely music. The gear disappears (that is, a good-enough simulation of live music is achieved). I listen because it is pleasurable (it isn't digital flagellation).

But if vinyl floats your boat, that is great. You have access to some truly wonderfully mastered recordings of memorable performances which are played on cool looking stuff that makes digital look pedestrian. Liner notes are easily available. And especially if you are the type of person who likes to manually tinker with delicate cartridges and the like (not saying this dismissively), the comforting rituals are something missing from digital playback.

Nicely stated. I do think with the best digital at this point in time, sound quality preferences will come down to the recording/mastering differences between the two mediums.

 

[Lee]

So , what price Digital is necessary to get close to Vinyl .. ?

Whatever a Rossini Apex costs.

 

[tima]

Science seems to tell us that the distortions of vinyl are friendly to the ear and preferred to digital distortions in a majority of people (if that isn't true, please post links that show the opposite).

But, we all do hear differently. Is that the result of the shape of our ears (unique to each person), how our brains are configured or genetics? Science doesn't know that yet (at least I haven't read about it).

It seems common in audiophile forums to find the claim that we all hear differently used as a rational for explaining preferences or differences of opinion.

I believe we hear more similarly than differently. Or we have evolved in a way that allows us to communicate about what we hear. For those who both hear and communicate I suspect a high percentage would agree, for example, that a soprano sounds different from a trombone. We don't have access to each other's subjective experience but we seemly are able, after a fashion, to share experiences sufficiently to relate with others. I suspect claims that we all hear differently partly come from differences in vocabulary and expression.

 

[PYP]

It seems common in audiophile forums to find the claim that we all hear differently used as a rational for explaining preferences or differences of opinion.

I believe we hear more similarly than differently. Or we have evolved in a way that allows us to communicate about what we hear. For those who both hear and communicate I suspect a high percentage would agree, for example, that a soprano sounds different from a trombone. We don't have access to each other's subjective experience but we seemly are able, after a fashion, to share experiences sufficiently to relate with others. I suspect claims that we all hear differently partly come from differences in vocabulary and expression.

Agreed. Most likely true that there are more similarities than differences and it comes down to differences in expression.

However, I sometimes entertain the idea that some people are more sensitive to digital noise than others (meaning, even minimal digital distortion prevents them from engaging with the music) and these people seek other media. And perhaps likewise, some people are more sensitive to noise related to vinyl playback and make their choices accordingly. Just a "what if?" rather than something science has shown.

 

[Rexp]

It seems common in audiophile forums to find the claim that we all hear differently used as a rational for explaining preferences or differences of opinion.

I believe we hear more similarly than differently. Or we have evolved in a way that allows us to communicate about what we hear. For those who both hear and communicate I suspect a high percentage would agree, for example, that a soprano sounds different from a trombone. We don't have access to each other's subjective experience but we seemly are able, after a fashion, to share experiences sufficiently to relate with others. I suspect claims that we all hear differently partly come from differences in vocabulary and expression.

Some folks do hear differently, I have posted videos on this forum where someone has much preferred one video over another and I thought the opposite.

 

[bonzo75]

Some folks do hear differently, I have posted videos on this forum where someone has much preferred one video over another and I thought the opposite.

assessment of gear using video is more subjective than in person. That is not because people hear differently, but because people have different ways of extrapolating using a video.

 

[bonzo75]

Perhaps the question is: Can digital be just as enjoyable as vinyl for a music lover?

Agreed, that is the better question.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Some folks do hear differently, I have posted videos on this forum where someone has much preferred one video over another and I thought the opposite.

Or at least hearing preference
Same as if one has a preference for a certain music genre , there is no need to discuss if this is good or bad
Its only a matter of if you enjoy what you are listening to ,im sure the music maker had that in mind as well .

70 % of Audio forums discussions in short , completely useless discussions over taste over and over again

The opposite of being open-minded is being closed-minded or dogmatic. People who are more closed-minded are usually not receptive to other ideas. They are only willing to consider their own viewpoints.

The thread tittle is a discussion that has gotten nowhere since i joined the forum in 2012

Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?​

 

[Rexp]

Or at least hearing preference
Same as if one has a preference for a certain music genre , there is no need to discuss this
its only a matter if you enjoy what you are listening to it or not

70 % of Audio forums discussions in short , completely useless discussions over taste over and over again

The opposite of being open-minded is being closed-minded or dogmatic. People who are more closed-minded are usually not receptive to other ideas. They are only willing to consider their own viewpoints.

The thread tittle is a discussion that has gotten nowhere since i joined the forum in 2012

Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?​

Yes, although we shouldn't lose sight of the fact we are into High Fidelity so I don't agree that audio systems should be like ice-cream flavours. If you see a classical guitarist live, you want as close as possible sound to that at home.

 

[andromedaaudio]

although we shouldn't lose sight of the fact we are into High Fidelity

Thats what my 70 % useless discussions refers too

 

[tima]

Some folks do hear differently, I have posted videos on this forum where someone has much preferred one video over another and I thought the opposite.

Well, okay. I don't know if that establishes different hearing so much as different preferences, as suggested by andro, above. My sense is that claims about hearing differently or not are inferred from what people say.

I'm not saying we all hear alike. I do believe we each can have different subjective experiences and describe what they hear differently. I'm just sceptical of categorical claims that speak for everyone, such as "we all hear differently." Maybe that is nit-picking. I can imagine that two people with perfect pitch will both name the same note when they hear it together. Maybe there are counter-examples and that would make the same point.

 

[hopkins]

Some folks do hear differently, I have posted videos on this forum where someone has much preferred one video over another and I thought the opposite.

Two comments:

a) listening to a YouTube video, you are not listening to exactly the same thing, as it is playing through different systems
b) one can focus on a specific aspect of a video (ex: you seem to focus on whether it sounds "digital", whatever that means) while someone else will focus on another aspect

 

[Blackmorec]

Let’s think about the differences in how 2 audiophiles hear the same recording or digital file

1. The recording needs to be ‘extracted from its storage medium and converted into an
analog voltage. There is a huge array of different equipment with which to do this, each with its own unique sonic character.
2. The analog voltage must be tailored to have the correct frequency response and amplitude. This ‘tailoring‘ also has its own unique sonic identity
3. The tailored voltage must be converted into sound pressure waves by a transducer, which also has its own unique sonic attributes
3. The sound pressure waves must be conducted by air into the ear. The air is usually contained in a vessel (headphone cup, ear bud, room) which again has its own unique acoustic properties, usually as a result of reflections, which affect timing, amplitude and phase of the waves differently, according to frequency.
4. The sound waves must be captured by the ear’s pinnea and directed down the ear canal so its pressure can act on and move the ear drum. Every individual’s pinnea and ear canal has a slightly different shape and its own unique sonic characteristics. The ear drum may or may not be preceded by a plug of ear wax.
5. The middle ear must detect the ear drum’s vibrations and conduct them into the cochlea, where they are converted into nerve impulses. The movement of the eardrum is of course influenced by the pressure in the middle ear.
6. The brain combines the input from the left and right ear in order to ascribe location
7. The brain then takes these combined nerve impulses, detects related timing and frequencies and compares them to known patterns stored in the memory. Each individual’s memories are of course different.
8. By finding a match, the brain is able to identify a likely source….a guitar, a saxophone, a voice etc.
9. The easier and less work involved in matching the pattern to a memory, the more the brain treats the sound as ‘realistic’
9. According to ’who-knows-what’ the brain finds ‘human pleasure‘ in the mix and timing of the nerve impulses.
10. Again, according to who-knows-what, the brain subconsciously responds to the stimulation by generating a range of feelings in emotions.
11. Finally the brain makes all this processed information available to the conscious, cognitive part of the brain which senses the nerve impulses as music coming from specific instruments and responds to the emotions with pleasurable feelings.
12. Audiophiles try to compare the degree to which they feel joy and pleasurable emotions on forums like this one.

So, the question is, can digitally sourced recordings produce the same or greater levels of joy, pleasure and emotions as analog? Of course the answer is a very qualified YES….depending on the amount of QUALIFIED effort that an audiophile puts into either medium in order that the brain generates the maximum emotional response. Put a ton of expert effort into vinyl and a moderate effort into digital and vinyl will generate the most pleasure. Reverse the level of effort and you reverse the result.

Prior to losing my hearing, I’d put 50 years worth of what I like to think was knowledgable effort into vinyl and it sounded most rewarding. However for the final 5 years all my effort went into gathering all the latest knowledge about streaming and using that to implement a completely new system and I was frankly stunned by what was possible.

So the answer is: either medium can sound awesome, depending on the amount of knowledge and effort that goes into building the system. And as you would expect based on recent history, there’s a lot more knowledge around on how to get the best from analog than there is about digital, which is still in its very early days in terms of extracting the quality of sound that’s ultimately possible.
The biggest hurdle Digital faces is the almost universal belief that all it needs is a bit perfect file. As long as that belief holds and is enforced by a cadre of passive aggressive ‘believers’, digital is going nowhere.

 

[hopkins]

The biggest hurdle Digital faces is the almost universal belief that all it needs is a bit perfect file.

That is actually the objective, isn't it?

 

[Blackmorec]

That is actually the objective, isn't it?

Hi there,
Yes, it’s ONE of the objectives, but here’s the thing. If bit perfect is ALL that is needed, then by definition it should be impossible to improve a system that is bit perfect. And that’s simply not the case. Far, FAR from it. I started out with a system that was bit perfect. And 5 years later the system was still bit perfect. But the difference in performance in terms of sound quality between the 2 iterations was huge….monumental……a massive improvement in literally everything I value as an audiophile.
So yes, you don’t want lost or altered bits, but that’s just the start. Claiming that there’s nothing more to it leaves digital exactly where it is today, which is, on average, well behind analog in my experience. My point is that while bit perfect is indeed a necessary fundamental there are still huge improvements in many other areas to be made in digital sound. That knowledge its out there, but drowned out by the “bit perfect is all that’s needed” message.