The truth about vinyl.vinyl vs digital

What I mean is that people draw incorrect conclusions about why they hear what they hear. Those with little to no technical understanding of audio, combined with not understanding logic are far more likely to come to incorrect conclusions. An audio system is complex and it's very, very easy to draw incorrect conclusions. I think we have all drawn incorrect conclusions, myself included. Audio is akin to meditation in some ways, and there are different kinds of meditation. System analysis is akin to one type of meditation while listening is related to another. The world is full of ways to help you grow as a human being and audio is a good teacher at times.

While I sell cables, part of the process is helping a potential customer achieve an improvement, and this often has other aspects that need to be addressed besides cables. So I've gone through this with hundreds of people over the years. Sometimes it IS as simple as upgrading a cable but often there are other issues like AC power quality, room acoustics, even the hearing sensitivities of the listener come into play at times due to age or hearing damage, or a particular personal preference.

I'm not going to give specific examples because it may upset people, I am kinda surprised you'd ask me to do this. It's not my place to do so without an invitation from the person specifically asking for my opinion, and even then it's not usually done in a public post. If people are looking into making improvements in their system and want my advise on cabling and AC power I can do that in private, and if it involves other aspects of the system I'm happy to go there if it relates.

I can tell you subjective preference has a basis in real, objective truth whether folks want to believe it or not. When people deny this, it's akin to believing in magic. One definition of magic is a technology we don't understand. This is why you get statements from pure subjectivists like this:



The statement that measurements and "technical hype", which needs to be properly defined... maybe we can say it's technical specifications of a piece of gear? In any case, reality defines these things and defines the sound these things produce! The above statement is a massive logical fallacy, it makes no sense whatsoever. It is only our own failure to be able to correlate measurements to what we hear. In some cases like frequency response, this is really obvious and is proof that these kind of subjectivist statements are misguided and incorrect, a result of faulty logic and an incorrect assessment of how an audio system works, and in fact a faulty assessment of how facts and reality define our world.

Thank you Dave. Yes, people can and do draw wrong conclusions as to why things sound as they do. We all make mistakes, and some more than others. I do not see the damage to which you allude, and without examples, I am left wondering.

I will share some specific examples of my own. Perhap they are what you are talking about. This kind of stuff does not upset me. I thought a particular slight phase/out of focus imaging issue was because of room acoustics. It turned out to be my long interconnects. DDK investigated the room/speaker interaction and then switched my cables for two different pairs that he brought with him. Problem solved. My subjective conclusion was wrong, his what right, but he also had suspicions about the cables before, perhaps for technical reasons, I do not know.

I also attributed some HF distortion to a piece of SS electronics, but later solved the issue with better cartridge alignment. A friend and I heard some HF distortion in his system. We disagreed as to the cause. He addressed it to his satisfaction with room treatments, I still hear it, but to a lesser degree. Finally, that black background and increased contrasts I thought was from an upgraded phono stage I was auditioning was actually from high end cables, TubeTraps, and power conditioning. Once I removed those from the system, I could hear the new ambient information and nuance from the recordings. Those touted items were not lowering noise but rather removing or obscuring information on the recordings or so it certainly seems.

I was also surprised by the increase in naturalness with better speaker orientation that eliminated toe-in. I have since been told that it simply increased reflections and my room was now creating a sense of ambience. Yet, recordings sounded more varied after the change rather than more homogenized.

I have learned much over the years about what can cause particular sonic issues and how to improve the sound of my system. However, in the end, what I care most about is the final result, and that is how natural the system sounds and how much I enjoy my LPs. I have compared all sorts of power cords. Some claim to be technically more advanced or correct with better wires, insulation, and connectors, and yet they do not necessarily sound better in certain system contexts. Do people agree about what measurements are the most important or even necessary? Surely in some cases, for some things, but much seems to remain a mystery. I've tried thinner and longer power cords that sound better than shorter, thicker and much more expensive power cords, both for high current and low current amplifiers. The cheap stuff people denigrate can often sound more realistic and convincing.

I use what sounds best to me in my system. My priority is on listening because my ears seem more reliable at identifying better gear than do the measurements that people tell me are so important. I don't know how to measure dynamics or flow, or naturalness. I will leave the measurements to the designers for whom they are useful and use my ears to select my gear and do the set up. If someone can do a better job, as ddk did a few weeks ago, I am certainly happy to get the help.

Subjective preferences, reality, objective truth, and their relationships can be quite fascinating. What I observe by hearing a symphony becomes a reference for the truth for me in reproduced audio. That reference is the goal and the truth worth pursuing. My observations are my perception of that reality, that truth. That sound as I once heard it is the basis for the decisions and choices I make with my system. The ears are the instruments. My enjoyment is the measurement. I like to learn and have fun along the way.

I like that definition of magic: technology that we do not understand. There is much that I do not understand about the science behind my audio gear and set up, but I certainly hear the magic, and I suspect the greats that designed the gear I just bought, and the guy who optimized it all for me, relied on more than magic. They relied on their ears as the final judge, and they did and do understand things.
 
Last edited:
There is a very large and vocal tribe of 16/44.1 PCM fundamentalists who pride themselves on not using their ears (the dreaded confirmation bias!) when evaluating audio and who rely exclusively on digital audio 101 literature and ABX tests, that has swamped the audio engineering and consumer audio forums. None of them has any experience with high end systems, and their own journey is not led by listening experience but spec sheets and text books. Beyond that, there is plenty of research and engineering in digital audio that goes beyond and contradicts the 44.1 fundamentalists, but they are either ignorant of it, or assume it is a scam. Part of the belief package is that systems that reveal more than their own are scams or placebo, that industry audio experts are universally lying to them, so they make their judgements on fairly low end systems. It is frustrating as their ideas propagate far and wide among amateur audiophiles and recordists who lack experience using their ears, and with decent systems.

Where it comes to vinyl, these are often people of a younger generation who's music is exclusively created in a digital environment. Their music on vinyl is CD quality or high res, with surface noise. Going back to the 80s, many records were cut with low resolution digital delays in the signal path, so unless you are a fan of music recorded before 1980, you probably aren't hearing a record in its full glory. That is a huge generation gap. When I was a kid in the 90s vinyl was of little benefit for new music because it was all sourced from the RedBook. So if you told me there was greater resolution or audio quality in vinyl, it would have made zero sense to me, especially with low end consumer turntables. Oddly, the situation has improved with the use of high res masters.
 
WAF
WAF
WAF

You seem unusually blessed in many regards including this one Peter. Though I suspect the line would be drawn at a Japanese man taking up residence in your garden or nailing bare gypsum onto the walls of your home.

I don't think anyone here kids themselves anywhere approaching the level of widescale devotion given towards golden age analog exists currently in consumer digital. Beyond common sense would dictate that might be a few decades away as it was during the last pandemic. ;)
WAF
WAF
WAF

You seem unusually blessed in many regards including this one Peter. Though I suspect the line would be drawn at a Japanese man taking up residence in your garden or nailing bare gypsum onto the walls of your home.

I don't think anyone here kids themselves anywhere approaching the level of widescale devotion given towards golden age analog exists currently in consumer digital. Beyond common sense would dictate that might be a few decades away as it was during the last pandemic. ;)
"Consumer" digital is not the same thing as audiophile digital.
 
Here is how a good argument should read.
Digital Audio Basics;
Audio Sample Rates and Bit Depth
Griffin Brown
5/21
 
This video contains some useful information. (...)

I just sampled it - and I am astonished that people loose their time with a video filled with just commonplace and triviality about the subject.

When addressing vinyl and digital are not just addressing formats - we are implicitly addressing the contents that represent them and our preference. And for me it is clear that the quality of the musical performance and our opinion on it significantly affects our preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MPS and DonH50
Wish I could double-like @microstrip's post. Without reading the rest of the thread, nor seeing the video (is there a link to it someplace?), it is easily demonstrable that digital has greater dynamic range and resolution (though CDs have less bandwidth) than something like tape or an LP, and equally as easy to show how much better many LPs sound and why. IME it is not the media (or medium? Grammar ain't my thang...) but is most often the recording, including the mastering and all that jazz. Look up "loudness wars" for one of the big reasons many LPs sound better than comparable CDs. I have a few copies of both, and in some cases 2 or 3 different CD versions, and it is very obvious listening and measuring to them that a lot of CDs are just badly recorded, (re)mastered, or whatever.

And of course there is the argument that the extra distortion and noise in many LPs makes them sound better, and there seems to be some support for that, but again it comes down more to the recording and less to the playback medium (or is that "media"?) I remember when the much greater dynamic range and lower noise floor of CDs was going to wipe out records, then listeners found the digital noise floor was harsh and nasty, so dither was added (for other reasons, natch) to make the noise floor more "analog" and it sounded better.

But I have a few CDs that are just outstanding, and leave me no desire to dig out my TT and record collection. And SACDs by and large seem to be better, perhaps because mastering is better since they tend to target the audiophile market (?)

Another endless religious debate...

IME/IMO - Don
 
Wish I could double-like @microstrip's post. Without reading the rest of the thread, nor seeing the video (is there a link to it someplace?), it is easily demonstrable that digital has greater dynamic range and resolution (though CDs have less bandwidth) than something like tape or an LP, and equally as easy to show how much better many LPs sound and why. IME it is not the media (or medium? Grammar ain't my thang...) but is most often the recording, including the mastering and all that jazz. Look up "loudness wars" for one of the big reasons many LPs sound better than comparable CDs. I have a few copies of both, and in some cases 2 or 3 different CD versions, and it is very obvious listening and measuring to them that a lot of CDs are just badly recorded, (re)mastered, or whatever.

And of course there is the argument that the extra distortion and noise in many LPs makes them sound better, and there seems to be some support for that, but again it comes down more to the recording and less to the playback medium (or is that "media"?) I remember when the much greater dynamic range and lower noise floor of CDs was going to wipe out records, then listeners found the digital noise floor was harsh and nasty, so dither was added (for other reasons, natch) to make the noise floor more "analog" and it sounded better.

But I have a few CDs that are just outstanding, and leave me no desire to dig out my TT and record collection. And SACDs by and large seem to be better, perhaps because mastering is better since they tend to target the audiophile market (?)

Another endless religious debate...

IME/IMO - Don
I've done a number of recordings with DSD, and it is actually the format and not just the mastering that gives greater quality. High res digital is similar, but less impressive. I haven't found a definitive or uncontested reason why this is so, although there is lots of theory. In recording and mastering studios you also find that the source tape usually has greater quality than the technically superior CD end product. IMO vinyl does preserve some of that quality, with obvious drawbacks in other ways, but again, there isn't a universal explanation why.

Having been involved with a few mastering projects I find it commendable that consumers are now more choosy about the dynamic range of their music, although sometimes it can be taken to an extreme. In the realm of pop or rock music, there are recordings that simply don't sound right, or have the musical impact, without some degree of dynamic compression, limiting, or equalization. Obviously, these things can completely spoil an album, but without any processing, sometimes it falls flat. One example I can think of was Mobile Fidelity's SACD of Weezer's "The Blue Album" which is a very crunchy guitar focused pop/rock album. They did a flat transfer with no EQ and the result sounds wimpy and missing the musical effect of the original mastering.

Ultimately, each piece of music has a sweet spot for dynamic range, and it varies by genre and artist. But just as you don't want to spoil it with too much dynamic compression, you can also rob it of some groove and musicality with too little. It is a craft, and a good mastering is certainly worth much more than the output format, but a good master on the right digital or analog format is golden.

Another thing to consider is that the mastering DAC used in cutting even a digitally mastered record is far better than what the average consumer listens through, but generally not as good as what many members of this forum have. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eichenbaum
Wish I could double-like @microstrip's post. Without reading the rest of the thread, nor seeing the video (is there a link to it someplace?), it is easily demonstrable that digital has greater dynamic range and resolution (though CDs have less bandwidth) than something like tape or an LP, and equally as easy to show how much better many LPs sound and why. IME it is not the media (or medium? Grammar ain't my thang...) but is most often the recording, including the mastering and all that jazz. Look up "loudness wars" for one of the big reasons many LPs sound better than comparable CDs. I have a few copies of both, and in some cases 2 or 3 different CD versions, and it is very obvious listening and measuring to them that a lot of CDs are just badly recorded, (re)mastered, or whatever.

And of course there is the argument that the extra distortion and noise in many LPs makes them sound better, and there seems to be some support for that, but again it comes down more to the recording and less to the playback medium (or is that "media"?) I remember when the much greater dynamic range and lower noise floor of CDs was going to wipe out records, then listeners found the digital noise floor was harsh and nasty, so dither was added (for other reasons, natch) to make the noise floor more "analog" and it sounded better.

But I have a few CDs that are just outstanding, and leave me no desire to dig out my TT and record collection. And SACDs by and large seem to be better, perhaps because mastering is better since they tend to target the audiophile market (?)

Another endless religious debate...

IME/IMO - Don

The newer Pink Floyd remasterings that I have been listening to lately on CD are not victims of the Loudness Wars. Very dynamic, no compression beyond what you might expect on the master tapes, short of hearing those tapes yourself.

Clasical and jazz, which I mostly listen to, in general seem hardly compressed on CD. For jazz I have done several comparisons with the same recordings on very good vinyl playback. No compression evident compared to the LP.

On the other hand, some classical orchestral LPs are clearly compressed compared to the same recording on CD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DonH50
Could that statement be one of those conclusions?


No, but your post sure is!

You're one of the people that would be offended by the thought you don't fully understand any subject.
 
Dear moderator, is it your goal going forward to strike ad hominems from posts?

My goal is that our members behave like polite, courteous and respectful adults and do not post obnoxious ad hominems.
 
While it denies us the opportunity to see beyond potemkinized forum personalities, carry on if you must. :)

He must. He thinks that is his destiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing