In general my digital is better than my vinyl. but my vinyl is better than my digital

[Gregadd]

Remember that What you hear is not the air pressure variation in itself but what has drawn your attention in the streams of superimposed air pressure variations at your eardrums. (from https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/Stereo-recording.htm)

In stereo we will mostly hear what we want or what we have been trained to hear. If it was not for my desire of listening to current recordings I would still be happy just with the vinyl format reproduction. But once we listen to 21th century technology and recordings at their best we become more exigent.

And sorry, IMHO enjoying digital at its best is not just owning a little DAC + streamer box and an iPad. If you are so demanding in vinyl why shouldn't you also be demanding in digitalM

Where do I began?
I suppose given the chance, you could explain this better given more time and space. maybe a separate thread? It begs the question. "How do we enjoy digital at its best?"

 

[Alrainbow]

I do

Sure, you can always rationalize away things.

To re-quote Rudi van Gelder:

"The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good."

That doesn't sound like a man who didn't try to make good pressings and didn't have any experience with the process.

I dont recall saying any such thing about Van Gilder , i do recall saying i have LP’s that better really good digital , Also if memory serves count Bassie for eg , wouldn't work with RVG , didnt like the artificial way he pumps up the music or the sound, obvious to hear when comparing Van Gilders pressings vs Bassie stuff ..

Before you blow a gasket I'm a big RVG jazz fan ..

 

[Alrainbow]

Maybe RVG didn't have a good LP playback system ..

 

[Kingrex]

Hey, its the season. I just ran 2 digital versions of A Charlie Brown Christmas via stored on my server via HQ Player 4. Against one of my better 1972 version on Vinyl. The vinyl rips the pants of the digital. Everything is far superior. On the vinyl at the end of Christmas Time Is Here, you can hear the record of the master tape turn off before the needle is done in the groove. The piano has significantly more heft, weight, dynamics. The highs are out and open. The digital highs are more pulled in and closed.

Sure, the mastering is different, but owe my god. The vinyl version is just spectacular.

Still happy I have choices between the two. I also like to rip up Bruno Mars 24k when I'm cooking. I don't think its on vinyl. And I probably would not spend the money..

 

[sbo6]

So we were told, ad infinitum, back in the 80s, by the measurbating fraternity. Though it's fair to say that additional range is almost never evident in an actual retail CD or dowload, due to the limitations of consumer playback equipment.

Somewhat paradoxically, it's in the nature of replay to require some degree of compression before reproduced sound can be realistic. It's a commonplace observation that vinyl sounds more dynamic than CD, I wouldn't pretend to understand why that is but it's interesting to note that human perception seems to hear things that way.

My friend you conveniently dismiss fact (A: CDs have more dynamic range than vinyl) then evangelize purported opinion (B: vinyl sounds more dynamic than CDs). A) The fact above remains a fact and B) It depends on the source. My guess is you already knew that ;-)

 

[bazelio]

There's theory and then there's practice. In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

 

[Al M.]

There's theory and then there's practice. In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

Agreed. While CD has always beaten lower level LP playback in perceived dynamics, in a remarkable fashion early CD playback sounded dynamically flat compared to higher level LP playback.

That has changed, at least on the many recordings with no or relatively little dynamic compression.

 

[sbo6]

There's theory and then there's practice. In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

And then there are facts which are - factual and undisputable.

 

[Kingrex]

And then there are facts which are - factual and undisputable.

What do you consider to be a fact. Are there any that lead to premium playback quality. Which is subjective.

 

[microstrip]

Where do I began?
I suppose given the chance, you could explain thus better given more time and space. maybe a separate thread? It begs the question. "How do we enjoy digital at its best?"

Optimizing the system for digital and using top digital recordings for evaluation. And most of all, we should not try to make our digital sound like some specific analog we experienced.

 

[montesquieu]

My friend you conveniently dismiss fact (A: CDs have more dynamic range than vinyl) then evangelize purported opinion (B: vinyl sounds more dynamic than CDs). A) The fact above remains a fact and B) It depends on the source. My guess is you already knew that ;-)

Actually I'd be the first to admit that sound quality is all about source - the mastering of the recording - and that this makes more difference to the sound than the playback method. (For this reason I think most of the discussion about hi-res completely misses the mark).

My primary objection to the whole streaming malarkey is ergonomic, but I also think it has pernicious effects over on how people value music. A tablet or laptop screen is a truly awful way to interface with a music collection, cheap and nasty, reducing music to an unmetered commodity.

Add in the long-term risk of abandoning ownership of media in favour of service fees that guarantee nothing but a month's access at at time to an ever-changing cataologue (that can and occasionally does shrink without notice as labels fall in and out of contract with streaming providers), as well as nasty innovations like MQA that are sneaking in rights management by the major recording companies by the back door, and I want nothing to do with it.

 

[Gregadd]

Optimizing the system for digital and using top digital recordings for evaluation. And most of all, we should not try to make our digital sound like some specific analog we experienced.

Those are two long running debates. What do we hear and how.? To what degree are biases and prejudices play a part. Most ardent digital promoters claim encoding and decoding digital is a very simple process. Of course all recordings should real music in real space.

 

[leftside]

With an originally well mastered and produced recording, and today's vinyl systems and DAC's it's all amazing. We're spoiled.

 

[thedudeabides]

I personally have no interest in vinyl. Gave it up maybe 25 years ago and have never looked back. Way too much work (and money) to get it to sound decent compared to a competent sounding digital system. And far easier to use on a daily basis. Why this forum is having another D vs A discussion is beyond me.

 

[sbo6]

T

Actually I'd be the first to admit that sound quality is all about source - the mastering of the recording - and that this makes more difference to the sound than the playback method. (For this reason I think most of the discussion about hi-res completely misses the mark).

My primary objection to the whole streaming malarkey is ergonomic, but I also think it has pernicious effects over on how people value music. A tablet or laptop screen is a truly awful way to interface with a music collection, cheap and nasty, reducing music to an unmetered commodity.

Add in the long-term risk of abandoning ownership of media in favour of service fees that guarantee nothing but a month's access at at time to an ever-changing cataologue (that can and occasionally does shrink without notice as labels fall in and out of contract with streaming providers), as well as nasty innovations like MQA that are sneaking in rights management by the major recording companies by the back door, and I want nothing to do with it.

That's an interesting perspective and I completely understand your stance albeit extreme from my view. In terms of the Tidal catalog, I've yet to have one song that I've added to my library be not available over several years.

 

[sbo6]

What do you consider to be a fact. Are there any that lead to premium playback quality. Which is subjective.

I was agreeing with the post that articulated that CDs have a wider dynamic range than LPs. That's a fact. Now, how that's leveraged in the recording or mastering process is another piece of the puzzle altogether.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I personally have no interest in vinyl. Gave it up maybe 25 years ago and have never looked back. Way too much work (and money) to get it to sound decent compared to a competent sounding digital system. And far easier to use on a daily basis. Why this forum is having another D vs A discussion is beyond me.

Even I agree that if the goals are 1) convenience and ease of use and ease of maintenance, and 2) merely decent or competent sound, digital is the way to go.

 

[Gregm]

Methinks the OP's objective here was a simple chat, not a confrontation between analogue & digital front ends!

Speaking of which, one of the reasons digital sounded mediocre was (is) the extent of compression contained in the digital files.
Happily, there is a limit to how much you can compress the sound on vinyl, the medium itself dictates the limit.
Digital is much more accomodating in that respect.
Hi-res digital may offer better dynamic range than analogue, but where are the files containing such endless dynamics?

Do 0dB, full-scale, recordings even exist?

 

[dcathro]

Even I agree that if the goals are 1) convenience and ease of use and ease of maintenance, and 2) merely decent or competent sound, digital is the way to go.

Is it your opinion that digital is limited to a decent/competent sound level?

 

[BlueFox]

Is it your opinion that digital is limited to a decent/competent sound level?

Excuse me, but what does that mean?