Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[hopkins]

In my experience, where you do benefit hugely is what I’m talking about above, using audiophile approaches to IT topics. If you are going to use IT equipment and techniques to listen to music and you care about ultimate sound quality as measured by your enjoyment, involvement and sub-conscious emotional response, there’s no such thing as ‘purely IT’ because every step in the IT chain has an effect on the final sound and if you don’t consider that as an audiophile, you will definitely prefer the sound of analog and with good reason.

Think about this. It’s a widely held belief amongst IT savvy audiophiles that a streaming router based on the Puma chipset sounds significantly inferior to a router based on the Broadcom chipset.

In order for that to be the case, the improved output from the router has to pass though and improve every other process between the router and your DAC. In order for it do that, the incoming data stream has to affect and improve the output….of every module in the network. Bear in mind, you may be converting the signal to radio waves or light, converting it back, passing it through a switch, into a server, where it may be reclocked, buffered, then retransmitted over Ethernet or USB. All those processes must be sensitive to the quality of the incoming signal and respond by improving their output. Better in = better out
What this means is that if you can improve the sound quality by improving your router, the exact same logic must apply to every other component on the way through your network. A better incoming signal gives a better output.

Back to technical discussions - my apologies...

While I will not deny your experience (and similar ones by many other audiophiles), I think your conclusions can be challenged.

Network errors are one thing (this is purely IT).
Noise reduction in the digital signal is a different issue. All I am suggesting here is that depending on the DAC you use, the upstream noise issues may have very little impact on the sound quality.

I am not trying to convince anyone, I am just sharing my experience (and trying to explain the logic behind it, but I don't claim to be an "expert"). I also see that some well-respected brands (ex:MSB) are going in that direction. Moreover it is interesting, at least to me, that there are a few similarities between MSB's solution and the one I use. But this would get pretty technical.

P.S.: I am NOT an ASR-type "objectivist"!

 

[hopkins]

One last post from me on this topic.

Once you accept the idea that noise in the digital signal can interfere with the DAC's performance (which some "objectivists" don't, by the way - I am not one of those), then all bets are off and it is a long and specific process that you embark upon to attempt to reduce that noise. Where do you start? Where do you stop ? "Noise" can have various sources - emi from hardware, rfi, wifi, etc... Each hardware has a specific and unique noise spectrum, and this noise spectrum may change depending on how you use that piece of hardware. So its makes every configuration unique.

I have been down that road, and I have chosen to explore an alternative path, and that is all I am saying. I do not claim that the results are "perfect".

 

[Audiohertz2]

The complexities of convenient digital raises it’s head again ..!

 

[hopkins]

The complexities of convenient digital raises it’s head again ..!

Complexity is not uncommon in high-end audio.
I give your the helium-powered Plasmatronic loudspeakers:

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

I heard theese Hill Plasmatronics outside Oslo at a friend of mine
he even cut the top to get in bigger gas bottles!
the tweeter was superb, but integration with the rest was crap and I had to sit in my swimming trunks due to the heat dissapation
the purple light from helium burning was pretty special too

 

[Audiohertz2]

Complexity is not uncommon in high-end audio.
I give your the helium-powered Plasmatronic loudspeakers:

View attachment 123817

Thats not complexity , its madness squared ..

 

[Al M.]

The complexities of convenient digital raises it’s head again ..!

Which is why I stay away from high end streaming (I do laptop and phone). Trust me, I've experienced all the drama, "upgrades" and "updates" in friends' systems over the years, and I want none of that.

My physical CD playback is simple, reliable, quite jitter-free (reclocker) and noise-free. Because of the latter it sounds better than most streaming (except perhaps the rare one that is well sorted out). So-called "high rez" notwithstanding.

 

[PYP]

In my experience, where you do benefit hugely is in using audiophile approaches to IT topics. If you are going to use IT equipment and techniques to listen to music and you care about ultimate sound quality as measured by your enjoyment, involvement and sub-conscious emotional response, there’s no such thing as ‘purely IT’ because every step in the IT chain has an effect on the final sound and if you don’t consider that as an audiophile, you will definitely prefer the sound of analog and with good reason.

Think about this aspect. It’s a widely held belief amongst IT savvy audiophiles that a streaming router based on the Puma chipset sounds significantly inferior to a router based on the Broadcom chipset.

In order for that to be the case, the improved output from the Broadcom router has to pass though and improve every other process between the router and your DAC. In order for it do that, the incoming data stream has to affect and improve the output….of every module in the network. Bear in mind, you may be converting the signal to radio waves or light, converting it back, passing it through a switch, into a server, where it may be reclocked, buffered, then retransmitted over Ethernet or USB. All those processes must be sensitive to the quality of the incoming signal and respond by improving their output. Better in = better out
What this means is that if you can improve the sound quality by improving the router, the exact same logic must apply to every other component on the way through the network. the better the incoming signal the better the output.
With that logic in mind, the question then is; ‘how better’?. What has to be improved? Fortunately thanks to the network standardisation committees there’s a simple answer. The network’s ‘Physical Layer” . Improve the physical layer and there’re are fewer errors, fewer interrupts, less latency, less jitter, less noise of all types, lower power supply impedances and essentially every component has less to do and works faster, more effectively and efficiently.
From an IT perspective, as long as the physical layer is there or there-abouts, all is fine. Sound quality on the other hand seems to very much depend on how good the physical layer is.

Is the objective to reduce common mode and differential mode noise? If so, is there a way for an audiophile without hands-on IT experience (beyond the usual handling of one's home network) to measure the effect other than with his ears?

It has been my assumption that each ethernet cleaner also add a bit of noise back into the system. Do you think that is correct and, if so, is this a reason for keeping the upstream (to the DAC) as simple as possible? That is, keep it as simple as needed but no simpler.

 

[skinnyfla]

Which is why I stay away from high end streaming (I do laptop and phone). Trust me, I've experienced all the drama, "upgrades" and "updates" in friends' systems over the years, and I want none of that.

My physical CD playback is simple, reliable, quite jitter-free (reclocker) and noise-free. Because of the latter it sounds better than most streaming (except perhaps the rare one that is well sorted out). So-called "high rez" notwithstanding.

… something I have been giving a lot of thought… with all those variables floating around there’s little convenient about streaming until you reach that point of perfection for a lot of money - buy a great CDP and spin CDs and that’s that… plug n play if you so want…

 

[PYP]

I fell in love with high end audio on mark levinson digital 20 years ago , nothing has changed .
Apart from some side steps to WADIA WEISS and Meitner i m back where it all started .

No vinyl or tape can put the pressure down on low freq s like digital can .
ML has that plus it has rhythm i wouldnt want to listen house music any other way ( besides wadax $$$$)

Ps the finite element footers i put under the apple are just for fun

View attachment 123810

The ability to handle rhythm is one of the outstanding qualities of the Mola Mola Tambaqui. I don't consider videos a realistic way to compare gear, but I did watch one that compared the Tambaqui to another well-considered brand. I couldn't hear much but I could certainly hear the difference in how they handled rhythm. The other DAC sounded slow and dull in comparison. Of course, beauty is in the ear of the beholder.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Which is why I stay away from high end streaming (I do laptop and phone). Trust me, I've experienced all the drama, "upgrades" and "updates" in friends' systems over the years, and I want none of that.

My physical CD playback is simple, reliable, quite jitter-free (reclocker) and noise-free. Because of the latter it sounds better than most streaming (except perhaps the rare one that is well sorted out). So-called "high rez" notwithstanding.

Agree Red-book playback by CDP beats any server or streamer IMO

 

[Rexp]

The ability to handle rhythm is one of the outstanding qualities of the Mola Mola Tambaqui. I don't consider videos a realistic way to compare gear, but I did watch one that compared the Tambaqui to another well-considered brand. I couldn't hear much but I could certainly hear the difference in how they handled rhythm. The other DAC sounded slow and dull in comparison. Of course, beauty is in the ear of the beholder.

Care to share it? It's quite easy to spot poor digital playback via a well recorded YouTube vid, a lack of rhythm/flow to the sound being a typical issue.
@Blackmorec how about a vid from you since you are recommending solutions that can't be demoed at a hifi store.

 

[Rexp]

Agree Red-book playback by CDP beats any server or streamer IMO

Unless the master on the CD is inferior.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Complexity is not uncommon in high-end audio.
I give your the helium-powered Plasmatronic loudspeakers:

View attachment 123817

I prefer my tweeters be powered by N2O.

 

[PYP]

Care to share it? It's quite easy to spot poor digital playback via a well recorded YouTube vid, a lack of rhythm/flow to the sound being a typical issue.
@Blackmorec how about a vid from you since you are recommending solutions that can't be demoed at a hifi store.

6:12 if you want to cut to the sound:

 

[Al M.]

Agree Red-book playback by CDP beats any server or streamer IMO

I wouldn't go as far as "any". Maybe more like "most". And for much less expense and/or effort.

A reclocker between CD transport and DAC is still advised.

 

[facten]

Agree Red-book playback by CDP beats any server or streamer IMO

I spin CDs only in both of my systems, with the well regarded Neodio Origine S2 CD player as the source in my main system. My only direct listening compare of a CDP to a DAC/Streamer was when I was at Gestalt Audio - Neodio Origine S2 and the Tron Electric Signature DAC/Aurrender N30 Streamer combo - same albums same tracks - all other equipment the same. I have no idea what Colin may or may not have done behind the scenes with his network. Regardless of the status of the network, the renditions via both simply drew me into the music, for me there was no hands down one better than the other both were equally engaging. The difference for me came down to my preference for a slightly smoother sound (Neodio).

If I may ask, what is your CDP source and what DAC/streamer or server sources were involved in direct comparisons you have conducted to reach your conclusion? Simply interested for sake of compare to what I found in my limited comparison. Txs.

 

[Brian Walsh]

Complexity is not uncommon in high-end audio.
I give your the helium-powered Plasmatronic loudspeakers:

View attachment 123817

I acquired a pair a while ago and only need to reinstall the re-foamed woofers to put them into use. The former Hill dealer had stored them for 40 years. Mint condition.

Frequency response of the plasma driver is from either 700 or 1000 Hz (selected on the crossover unit) to 180 kHz, no horn loading needed.

 

[sigbergaudio]

It’s always a psychological ‘thing’. Psychoacoustics is the very basis of hearing and the stereo illusion. Giving meaning and context to 2 discreet sets of sound pressure waves in time is entirely psychological

As regards digital vs analog, you’re looking at a very mature, fully developed technology (analog) vs one still in the early stages of its development (digital). Early stage digital wasn’t particularly alluring, sound quality wise. What’s holding digital back is the getting-on-for universal belief that a recording that is a bit perfect copy of the original is as good as a particular recording can sound. What a lot of people haven’t realised is that a bit perfect copy can be GREATLY enhanced, while still remaining bit perfect.

Let me try to illustrate the point in a less (some will argue more) abstract way. Imagine the bits are sugar crystals. A crystal = 1 and no crystal = 0. Bit perfect would look at the pattern of crystals and decide if the pattern matches the originating pattern ie is the copy exactly the same as the original?. Back to the IT version of bits, logic tells us that as long as the 2 versions (original and copy) of the bits match exactly, everything is fine and can’t be improved, for that file. In IT, that’s correct. All a computer needs is an accurate file and the integrity of the data is maintained. That’s the basis of all networking. To end up with an unaltered copy of the data.
Back to the sugar analogy, as long as we’re only considering the bit structure, the IT concept works perfectly. But if we actually consume the sugar, then suddenly the actual content of each crystal plays a role. If there’s an off-flavour in the sugar, the data integrity may be fine, but the way it feels on our taste buds isn’t good and in order to make it taste good we have to find a way to purify the sugar.
In audio, we start with a file, process it in a myriad number of ways and end up with a file that if bit perfect, has exactly the same structure. From an IT perspective, that’s job done. But if along that processing we have introduced a number of impurities, when we consume those bits, they won‘t taste as good (sound as good). This is the HUGE difference between IT and Audio. In IT we consume those bits as data so the final arbiter is data integrity. In audio we consume those bits as sound, so the final arbiter is sound quality. You can measure data integrity. You can’t measure sound quality. One is an objective measure and the other a subjective measure.
The big difference between analog and digital is that in analog the original signal can only be protected and nurtured, whereas in digital the signal can be cleaned, refined and improved. The network is a way to move data files around, a good network does so with data integrity. From an IT perspective, that’s all that’s necessary. But if that data file is going to be consumed as music, the network can also function as a means to clean and refine the data stream and all I’m saying is that the cleaned and refined version of that data stream sounds (tastes) a lot better than the unrefined but non-the-less accurate version.
Coming back to the above point, the more refined the bit stream, the more enjoyable it is. If people know more about protecting an analog signal than they do about refining a data stream, it’s very likely they’ll prefer the analog. On the other hand if someone has truly grasped how a data stream can be refined, that refined stream can sound absolutely gorgeous and will likely be preferred over the analog.

Finally just to mention that DACs have a major role to play in how much the bit stream quality affects the final sound.

Your posts in this thread is painful to read. As a person who is very much pro digital and think it can sound as good as vinyl (I have nothing against either medium), I am sorry to see you completely making up lots of nonsense that will put other people off digital because it seems extremely complex to get right.

This post and both previous and subsequent posts are completely made up jibberish, and I kindly ask you to provide any kind of reference to any of your claims. Digital media is exactly the same as vinyl as in it can at best be kept intact along the way (so not degraded). That the network components along the way can "improve the bits" is. not. true.

 

[skinnyfla]

Your posts in this thread is painful to read. As a person who is very much pro digital and think it can sound as good as vinyl (I have nothing against either medium), I am sorry to see you completely making up lots of nonsense that will put other people off digital because it seems extremely complex to get right.

This post and both previous and subsequent posts are completely made up jibberish, and I kindly ask you to provide any kind of reference to any of your claims. Digital media is exactly the same as vinyl as in it can at best be kept intact along the way (so not degraded). That the network components along the way can "improve the bits" is. not. true.

Well, that’s an interesting and refreshingly different take on things. You are right - all the variables are likely to put some people off - seems even more difficult to set up streaming than a complex analog system… and in the end with the results, that it still can’t compete.

In your opinion, what does it take to make digital sound great, CDP or streaming ripped and what’s the importance of the components from ripper to server to software to switch to galvanic isolation to bridge to reclocker to DAC to cabling… boy oh boy… … or just a decent CDP and a great analog rig…