Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Mcsnare]

And things get even more complicated when you take into account the fact that the digital signal itself always contains imperfections at the source: recording "jitter" (from the ADC step). So you could have a "perfect" DAC, which introduces zero additional jitter, and it could theoretically sound worse than a DAC which introduces some random jitter and in a sense "compensates" for the recording jitter...

While I completely agree with you in principle, professional A/D converters are very good with respect to low jitter. Many in widespread use introduce a level of of jitter that is extremely small. It's actually easier to make a good A/D than it is the make a good D/A. The bulk of imperfections we hear in digital has more to do with distortion (analog and digital clipping) introduced in the recording and mixing phase and in mastering to make the final master loud.

I don't have scientfic proof, just my experinces, and I tend to think the biggest contribution to the sound of a dac is from it's analog output stage.

 

[hopkins]

While I completely agree with you in principle, professional A/D converters are very good with respect to low jitter. Many in widespread use introduce a level of of jitter that is extremely small. It's actually easier to make a good A/D than it is the make a good D/A. The bulk of imperfections we hear in digital has more to do with distortion (analog and digital clipping) introduced in the recording and mixing phase and in mastering to make the final master loud.

I am glad you mention that. I've had this "hunch" for a while now (that A/D is easier to get "right" than D/A).
Perhaps one simple explanation is that D/A "issues" get amplified ?

I don't have scientfic proof, just my experinces, and I tend to think the biggest contribution to the sound of a dac is from it's analog output stage.

Many tend to share this point of view. I have been in the unique position to test various iterations (some not "commercially available" as I had the opportunity to test different versions of the product - but I have no affiliation with the manufacturer otherwise) of a particular DAC that does not have an output stage (at least from my understanding). Moreover, the DAC acts as a preamp/amplifier, without conventional preamplification/amplification (in essence, it works as an "attenuator" not an "amplifier"), so the output directly connects to your speakers or headphones - this offers the unique opportunity to "hear" directly the effect of various changes without any interference from "downstream" components (aside for the speakers or headphones and associated cables, obviously). I have also used it with a variety of "crossover-less" speakers, so this is pretty much as direct a sound as you can get from a converter!

Several caveats:
- this DAC has a particular "architecture" (variant of R2R) and some of the conclusions may not apply to other DACs
- more generally, I don't claim that the DAC is "better", and I have not compared it directly to other DACs (mostly because I am happy with it and I cannot afford many of the "state of the art" DACs available, for example MSB, Mola-Mola, etc...)

What I have had the opportunity to hear is that many changes to the DAC's internal processing, as heard in different versions, have a significant impact on the sound. In essence, réduction of noise/interferences and improvements in accuracy (theoretical, not really measurable other than through very specific lab tests of individual components) result in a more "relaxed" and transparent sound, something even non-audiophile can notice.

Some examples of design changes:
- various solutions to convert the incoming digital signal (in this case, a Toslink optical signal) and reclock it
- implementation of a "bandwidth" reduction filter to effectively reduce interferences in the data stream in the DAC (they don't use I2S connections which have very high bandwidth - several GHz - but use a parallel interface that is limited "physically" to 192kHz)
- reduction of what are called "glitches" (basically component errors) in the DAC switches (technical details are complex, but from what I understand the digital bits are split to reduce the effect of these errors)
- some other aspects, here again way too complex for me to understand, have dealt with power supply "noise"/ground "noise", but I really don't understand them so I cannot give more details
....

This is all "anecdotal" and may not apply to other DACs. Still, I think it offers an interesting perspective. Perhaps other DACs do things better, or perhaps with other DACs some of these issues fail to be heard as the signal passes through a number of other components (output stage, pre-amplification, amplification and all associated interconnects...).

 

[Another Johnson]

Whatever a Rossini Apex costs.

At my house this rings very true.

Lee and I have very different turntables, amps, and preamps, but we are both using Lyra Etna Lambda and ARC Ref Phono 3SE. We’re both using Wilson speakers.

We’ve both owned and auditioned a lot of other vinyl setups. We both travel to hear well regarded setups far from home. Lee has heard some of the very best in the world.

When I sit down and start streaming through the Rossini Apex, I don’t think “Oh this is hurting my ears, I must switch to vinyl.” I think “Wow! It took me two years of serious work to make streaming sound this good, and I’m glad I put in the effort.”

Had I listened to my colleagues in the “Vinyl is unapproachable” crowd where I’d roosted for many decades, I’d never have come this far. If I’d listened to the computer jockeys who assured me that there was nothing wrong with what I perceived to be incredibly bad sound from streaming, I would have quit too early too.

One can argue ad nauseam about the OP’s question.., but at the end of the day, what matters is what you did about it, and the outcome of your efforts. It looks and sounds like there have been a lot of failures to achieve on both sides.

 

[Rensselaer]

The question was asked: "Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?"

The majority of responses by this august group of audiophiles to this question has for the most part been thinly veiled attacks between those who prefer digital and those who prefer analogue. My question is, why try? Wouldn't it be better to allow those who love pure analogue to keep their vinyl records and give every other format to those who love digital?

No need to argue which sounds better, it doesn't matter. Digital will continue to improve and may one day surpass the sound quality of vinyl (if it hasn't already), at which point, if someone decides that they now prefer digital streaming to putting on records, they can easily sell their rig and install a streaming rig.

Music rights have been bought up by purveyors of digital content everywhere. Sony, the inventors of the CD, probably holding the largest bite. Back when CD was king, CD sales of such was more than 70% of total music sales. There was (and still is) however, a small contingent of audiophiles who for whatever reason prefer the pure analogue sound found on vinyl records. Apparently that didn't sit right with the digital music moguls, they wanted that market too (they want it all). So they start cutting their digital music to vinyl records often with nothing more than a CD player, and then sell these Frankenstein monstrosities to the unsuspecting vinyl enthusiast without a single word on the jacket cover that the LP was cut from a digital source and/or with digital processing.

Analogy: People who love yachting tend to be drawn either towards motor boats or sailboats. The largest percentage prefer the motor boat as it has power on tap whenever the owner wants it. Point and go. Perhaps they like the bass rumble of the big engines and the instant response of the throttle. Those who sail however, prefer a more natural way of travel and may not like the what burning fossil fuels is doing to the environment. Say the oil industry buys up all the power boat manufacturers and produces more than 70% of all that floats. Perhaps they want more, perhaps they want it all? How can they get those who prefer to sail to buy into polluting motor-driven yachts? They decide to buy up the companies that build sail boats and continue to build the same, but with motors. Many sail boats had small external or internal ancillary motors for emergencies in the past, but now all sailboats will be motor-sailers, that is, equally able to cover the same distance by sail or motor. The sails then start getting smaller and smaller and the motors bigger and bigger, then eventually one can't find a pure sail boat unless one buys an old cherished yacht from the past. Have fun trying to find one in "near mint" condition.

To those of you in the music industry, please keep vinyl records, a hundred year old technology, pure analogue forever. If you can't get by with CD, MP3, Flac, DSD, DVD-audio, SACD, streaming etc., and must put digital to DAC and then cut to vinyl, say so on the cover so that the analogue enthusiasts waist no more money on c%&p.

 

[wil]

Music is not new or old based on when it is created. It is either new to you or not. If you haven''t explored classical, baroque, etc that is new to you. Saying you listen to Justin Bieber and don't know Led Zep or Beethoven does not mean you listen to new music.

I was referring to modern “classical” music which seems to be dismissed by some golden age vinyl devotees

 

[wil]

The reason I prefer one over the other is likely due to distortion embedded in the version I don't like. This distortion is more bothersome to me than others it seems.

I think it’s a mistake to assume that you hear differently than others. Maybe that could be a factor, but there are other factors that you maybe overlooking.

 

[Al M.]

I was referring to modern “classical” music which seems to be dismissed by some golden age vinyl devotees

If they want to stay with golden age vinyl, they may not have access to the most modern classical music, but they do have access to some great "modernist" classical music. For example the legendary RCA/Victor release of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra with Chicago Symphony/Fritz Reiner, or the Schoenberg/ Berg/ Webern release with Dorati on Mercury. It takes a bit of adventurousness, but it's worth it.

 

[bonzo75]

If they want to stay with golden age vinyl, they may not have access to the most modern classical music, but they do have access to some great "modernist" classical music. For example the legendary RCA/Victor release of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra with Chicago Symphony/Fritz Reiner, or the Schoenberg/ Berg/ Webern release with Dorati on Mercury. It takes a bit of adventurousness, but it's worth it.

Reiner has recorded in the golden age, and Bartok concertos have been performed in the golden age. The Szell Bartok concerto for instance. Both Schoenberg and berg have many performances in that era

 

[PYP]

Whatever a Rossini Apex costs.

$32,800 (without clock). Are you referring to the Rossini Apex with or without the clock? Just curious.

 

[microstrip]

If it were not a challenge, then why are so many "players" in fact not bit-perfect?

Can you tell us a few high-end players that are not intrinsically "bit perfect"? As far as I know, flavors are created by intentional manipulation of digital and analog data in the DAC, not by errors.

Anyway, as I mentioned, this is all a small aspect of digital so-called "accuracy" (which is theoretical and can never be confirmed, as I explained, when you consider the problem from the recording to the DAC's output).

As I referred "accuracy" has a well known objective technical meaning. Digital audio accuracy has been qualified and quantified and confirmed. IMHO if we want to address subjective issues we should do it with appropriate clear terms It is well know that preferences can't be debated in just terms of accuracy.

I don't understand what you mean in your last paragraph, but perhaps this does not have to be dwelled on any further.

My apologies. What part of the paragraph do you want me to clarify? The democracy or the elitism?

 

[Another Johnson]

$32,800 (without clock). Are you referring to the Rossini Apex with or without the clock? Just curious.

I know this was addressed to @Lee, but here’s my situation.

I asked Emron Mangelson and John Giolas about the best order of upgrades. Both said Apex first. Then Clock. I think Lee has the clock. I have not sprung for the clock yet. I wanted to hear the Apex in my system first. It is hard for me to imagine that the clock will add much … BUT history has shown me over and over again that there is always a path forward. I will probably add the clock soon.

edit: Emron and John are with dCS. I’ve interacted with both on numerous occasions at events, and I’ve always thought them to be straight shooters.

 

[hopkins]

---

Can you tell us a few high-end players that are not intrinsically "bit perfect"? As far as I know, flavors are created by intentional manipulation of digital and analog data in the DAC, not by errors.

Once again, you cannot verify that a DAC is "bit perfect". You can only verify the incoming data stream - the "streamers" (that send a file as a digital signal to the DAC) are not all bit-perfect.

As I referred "accuracy" has a well known objective technical meaning. Digital audio accuracy has been qualified and quantified and confirmed.

That's news to me.

IMHO if we want to address subjective issues we should do it with appropriate clear terms It is well know that preferences can't be debated in just terms of accuracy.

I am not addressing subjective issues, but once again there are no "objective" methods for determining that a DAC's output (analog) is accurate to the incoming digital signal.

My apologies. What part of the paragraph do you want me to clarify? The democracy or the elitism?

Let's move on.

 

[Lee]

$32,800 (without clock). Are you referring to the Rossini Apex with or without the clock? Just curious.

Rossini Apex would probably do it but adding the clock helped as well.

 

[Blackmorec]

You start by saying that it is a "psychological thing" and conclude by saying that if everyone applied your recipes they would prefer digital. That's a bold statement, and a very general one, that I doubt could withstand comparison over a wide variety of albums.

Hi Hopkins,
In paraphrasing what I said, rather than clarifying, it just made it sound more contentious, which wasn’t my intent.

This isn’t my recipe, indeed it’s not a ‘recipe’ at all, so allow me to clarify exactly what I’m saying.

During the past say 20 years, digital audio has evolved from simple CD players to become a medium that leverages all the standardisation and progress in networks and data streaming. From the outset, networking has developed and evolved as a means to move digital data from one place to another in as fast, reliable and cheap (cost per unit of data) as possible. Not one single IT related development has focussed on how the resulting files actually sound. Audio files were nothing more that another package of bits and the assumption was that as long as the files’ integrity was good, ie. you obtained a bit perfect copy, then the file and therefore resulting sound was as good as it was going to get, at least from an IT perspective.

A small cadre of IT/networking specialists are also highly enthusiastic audiophiles and they quickly latched on to the evolving technology. They soon discovered that the servers and streamers that they used to feed their DACs all sounded different and could be optimised in ways that improved sound quality. A small but dedicated group of these individuals created websites and forums and started sharing data and pretty soon a significant amount of knowledge about how to build a great sounding server was established. Now these folks are nothing if not curious, and the developments they made in this DIY community started to result in some seriously good sound. Some of these individuals took what they knew and established commercial companies to develop and build servers. And pretty soon, those servers established loyal customer bases that helped those companies to grow and fund R@D for future product development. And out of that DIY and commercial R@D grew a a deeper understanding of what it was about digital and specifically networking, cabling, clocks, interfacing, power supplies, vibration control, EMI and RFI control that was influencing and degrading sound quality resulting from digital audio files. That knowledge is still mainly restricted to the DIY enthusiasts and the well-heeled individuals who can afford the not inexpensive products that are the fruits of this ongoing R&D. The vast majority of individuals who use digital audio are still of the mind set that the bit-perfect file is still the holy grail of digital audio. They believe that its impossible to change how a digital file eventually sounds unless you change that file’s bit structure.
So, all I’m saying is that if you take the time to understand what those DIY folks have discovered and what companies like Innuos and Taiko are up to in terms of servers and all the ancillary networking and get the opportunity to actually listen to digital audio that has fully benefited from all those recent developments and discoveries, you may be shocked at just how incredibly good it sounds and in my particular case, how antiquated it made my fairly high quality vinyl based system sound.

 

[skinnyfla]

… besides the hardware - are there any mayor differences between sourcematerial, say CDs direct from transport vs lossless ripped CDs - then ripped CDs as FLAC or WAV - then ripped vs streaming from Qobuz/Tidal… etc… soooo many variables… whats the best digital source to get closer to vinyl?

 

[hopkins]

So, all I’m saying is that if you take the time to understand what those DIY folks have discovered and what companies like Innuos and Taiko are up to in terms of servers and all the ancillary networking and get the opportunity to actually listen to digital audio that has fully benefited from all those recent developments and discoveries, you may be shocked at just how incredibly good it sounds and in my particular case, how antiquated it made my fairly high quality vinyl based system sound.

I understand your point of view. There are different roads that can be taken to optimize digital and it is difficult to compare all these different solutions (there are so many, and it is constantly evolving).

Can analog serve as a benchmark for digital, as you seem to indicate? I don't know. Some LPs simply have much better sound than their CD equivalent that it makes the comparison moot. There is certainly a space for both analog and digital.

 

[skinnyfla]

… if you were to build on limited funds for digital (as it is in my case, most money goes to analog and I cant put equal amounts into both) what would the most impotant invest be - the DAC?

 

[Another Johnson]

… if you were to build on limited funds for digital (as it is in my case, most money goes to analog and I cant put equal amounts into both) what would the most impotant invest be - the DAC?

The wiring/switching infrastructure and the quality delivered by your isp. Next, room + speakers + amp. Next DAC. Then transport if you want to play silver disks.

 

[skinnyfla]

The wiring/switching infrastructure and the quality delivered by your isp. Next, room + speakers + amp. Next DAC. Then transport if you want to play silver disks.

… wow, thanks, that’s not what i expected

 

[hopkins]

… wow, thanks, that’s not what i expected

You will get many different answers because we all have such different experiences. I use a DAC which I believe makes source optimization obsolete, but that's just my opinion (shared by a few others who have tried it).. This basic model may be all you need if you have a preamp with a spare input: https://www.ecdesigns.nl/en/shop/powerdac-bx

Obviously speakers are going to make a significant difference, but that was not your question.