Vinyl and Digital: How does the sound or listening experience differ?

[Kofi Baffour]

low end sounded more fleshed out. sense of warmth and detail retrieval was more coherent on the PCM master, the absence of groove track related distortion was a godsend as it allowed for peering into the actual music related saturation and dynamic tactility.

On vinyl it sounded fantastic but I kept going back to the digital. So I ended up selling my vinyl stuff after experimenting with various albums I know were meticulously mastered in the digital domain.

the freedom of expression that came through the digital mixes of these albums will have been one noted on vinyl imo. But that is just my singular experience

Thank you. I understand you own both formats and have a preference for one over the other, but could you describe what you actually hear from each format and if and how the listening experience differs?

If one sounds more like your memory of live music, how so? And if it doesn’t, why does it not?

 

[Kofi Baffour]

What do you describe as fidelity here? Resolution, tonal characteristics, snap and punch? What makes Steve Wilson's Harmony Codex make stand out to you on digital vs vinyl?

all the above subjective descriptors and more as written in the above reply

 

[Al M.]

all the above subjective descriptors and more as written in the above reply

Thank you.

 

[microstrip]

It is curious that people love referring the characteristics of vinyl versus digital, but along tens of year they have shown little interest in debating vinyl versus high quality tape. My current views on vinyl and digital were seriously influenced by my tape experience using a standard Studer A80.

I have found this 2008 Stereophile article particularly interesting mainly because it goes over many interesting subjects. https://www.stereophile.com/content/can-we-agree-disagree-lp-vs-cd.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It is curious that people love referring the characteristics of vinyl versus digital, but along tens of year they have shown little interest in debating vinyl versus high quality tape. My current views on vinyl and digital were seriously influenced by my tape experience using a standard Studer A80.

I have found this 2008 Stereophile article particularly interesting mainly because it goes over many interesting subjects. https://www.stereophile.com/content/can-we-agree-disagree-lp-vs-cd.

i've talked about vinyl verses tape for years. happy to debate it.

my method of purchasing tapes is close to 100% directly comparing the tape to the vinyl to see whether it's enough better to acquire it.

i did buy a very well known commercial tape of a popular recording a few years ago said to be wonderful from feedback. i owned it for a few months before i played it. honestly it sucked and my 45rpm pressing smoked it, so did my 33rpm pressing. so i sold it with full disclosure of my opinion. the buyer was glad to have it.

with tape you absolutely never know what you have until you listen to it. and then if your vinyl or digital improves your tapes can change in comparative terms. and if your tape playback improves that can again change the ratio of how many tapes are better then the vinyl.

when i first got into tape a friend who sold 'grey market tapes' would acquire tape collections and then bring them by my room since i had my Studer and good vinyl and lots of records. we would listen to his tapes and i would play my vinyl and we would determine which tapes made the grade. then later he would deliver the tape dubs of the one's i wanted to own.

so the whole tape<->vinyl compare is fundamental.

and for the listener who is afraid of the investment in vinyl and all the complication of vinyl and cost of the better pressings, but who is mostly a digital listener but wants the occasional quick hit of super analog, tape can deliver that with much less investment and drama. you just have to live with a smaller collection potential.

 

[jeromelang]

Really? Isn't this just personal dogma? (Which is totally fine, of course, but should not be confused with objective fact.)

How do you explain the numerous turntable manufacturers whose turntables and platters and plinths and tonearms are all metal? (For example, Basis Audio, Technics, Vintage Audio Specialties.)

Turntable/Cartridge designers certainly do know about the issues of eddy current and its detrimental effects on audio, arising from having metallic materials in near proximity to the cartridge.
But most of them simply lack the courage and honesty to go about resolving the problem in their product.

But, once in a while, you might still be able to catch some of them letting the cat out of the bag.

Here in this turntable roundtable discussion, Mark Dohmann was caught revealing about the problem with eddy current - with having metallic objects right near (underneath) the cartridge just seconds after another person had just talked about his cantilever designs.

Start watching from 28:16

 

[microstrip]

(...) with tape you absolutely never know what you have until you listen to it. and then if your vinyl or digital improves your tapes can change in comparative terms. and if your tape playback improves that can again change the ratio of how many tapes are better then the vinyl. (...)

Yes, you often addressed this overtaking game as your digital or analog system improved, and I was a little puzzled on it. Although the definition of better is extremely subjective in this hobby, I think we are addressing it from the perspective of being more enjoyable to the listener, where most of is surely due to listener attitude - and in some sense, the more we know the more we are victims of it - this can explain a lot. Our way of listening surely conditions our opinions.

My fundamental opinions of vinyl or digital have not changed with gear improvements or changes - surely excluding the very early digital systems period.

BTW, I have a limited number of master tapes, surely enjoyable, but also used them as a reference to assert the contribute of vinyl artifacts in vinyl.
However, we can always debate whether the intention of the sound engineer were supplying us the tape sound or the vinyl sound.

 

[microstrip]

Turntable/Cartridge designers certainly do know about the issues of eddy current and its detrimental effects on audio, arising from having metallic materials in near proximity to the cartridge.
But most of them simply lack the courage and honesty to go about resolving the problem in their product.

But, once in a while, you might still be able to catch some of them letting the cat out of the bag.

Here in this turntable roundtable discussion, Mark Dohmann was caught revealing about the problem with eddy current - with having metallic objects right near (underneath) the cartridge just seconds after another person had just talked about his cantilever designs.

Start watching from 28:16

Surely it is a strong point of vinyl - although it seems simple, it is such a complex system that we can always look for some physics laws to justify a particular approach. Mark Dohmann gear is excellently designed, assuming specific compromises that are clearly expressed and sound fabulous, but his marketing literature is not different from other similar products - wordy and never quantified, written to please typical audiophiles.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes, you often addressed this overtaking game as your digital or analog system improved, and I was a little puzzled on it. Although the definition of better is extremely subjective in this hobby, I think we are addressing it from the perspective of being more enjoyable to the listener, where most of is surely due to listener attitude - and in some sense, the more we know the more we are victims of it - this can explain a lot. Our way of listening surely conditions our opinions.

tapes are not cheap, whether grey market or commercial, whether with a digital step or all analog, and whether for an iconic well known recording, or something current but obscure. you have to listen to it to judge whether it's worth the cost. so developing a way to gauge the performance allows one to assemble a nice selection with confidence. which was how i developed my process.

and there are tape sources where the quality and sonics are predictable.....and i can buy with confidence. and i have a number of tapes from those folks.

is this tape worth $200-$500....or more? that's an important question. when i already own the vinyl or the source file?

My fundamental opinions of vinyl or digital have not changed with gear improvements or changes - surely excluding the very early digital systems period.

i have a few titles on the edge of that line which have swapped spots a few times. it's the price of pushing each source format hardware. but probably for most tape owners the tape medium does take the performance higher predictably.

another issue is that my system can magnify the tape performance to visitors......sometimes. so in one session it could bring the house down. but a few years later if we play the vinyl it might be even better. this has happened where i did not realize it until later. so i have to try and stay objective about it. we can listen to tape with our eyes instead of our ears. it can be wonderful, but still short of the vinyl.

in another case i was at a show and heard a demo tape of a demo cut i play often on vinyl. it did sound great. later i acquired that demo tape and found it was cut from a digital file and my vinyl was much better. but at the show people loved it for the great music and seeing it was tape.

the experience of collective listening has many components and so when we get into compares the impressions can be exposed. i walk around shows and see tape and hear it and yes, it can be wonderful......but compared to what....exactly?

BTW, I have a limited number of master tapes, surely enjoyable, but also used them as a reference to assert the contribute of vinyl artifacts in vinyl.
However, we can always debate whether the intention of the sound engineer were supplying us the tape sound or the vinyl sound.

in your case it sounds like your main reason for tape is for a reference, and that you just enjoy it. not so much to have lots of musical choices. i respect your particular use case. would have save me lots of money to have followed your lead.

solid tape performance can deliver something special. there is no right or wrong to it. some of it is the way good tape can sound and it is mostly exceptional and the presentation is superb. but vinyl can be just as right and solid at the top level.......while tape has a higher ceiling when all is right.

 

[microstrip]

tapes are not cheap, whether grey market or commercial, whether with a digital step or all analog, and whether for an iconic well known recording, or something current but obscure. you have to listen to it to judge whether it's worth the cost. so developing a way to gauge the performance allows one to assemble a nice selection with confidence. which was how i developed my process.

and there are tape sources where the quality and sonics are predictable.....and i can buy with confidence. and i have a number of tapes from those folks.

is this tape worth $200-$500....or more? that's an important question. when i already own the vinyl or the source file?

i have a few titles on the edge of that line which have swapped spots a few times. it's the price of pushing each source format hardware. but probably for most tape owners the tape medium does take the performance higher predictably.

another issue is that my system can magnify the tape performance to visitors......sometimes. so in one session it could bring the house down. but a few years later if we play the vinyl it might be even better. this has happened where i did not realize it until later. so i have to try and stay objective about it. we can listen to tape with our eyes instead of our ears. it can be wonderful, but still short of the vinyl.

in another case i was at a show and heard a demo tape of a demo cut i play often on vinyl. it did sound great. later i acquired that demo tape and found it was cut from a digital file and my vinyl was much better. but at the show people loved it for the great music and seeing it was tape.

the experience of collective listening has many components and so when we get into compares the impressions can be exposed. i walk around shows and see tape and hear it and yes, it can be wonderful......but compared to what....exactly?

in your case it sounds like your main reason for tape is for a reference, and that you just enjoy it. not so much to have lots of musical choices. i respect your particular use case. would have save me lots of money to have followed your lead.

solid tape performance can deliver something special. there is no right or wrong to it. some of it is the way good tape can sound and it is mostly exceptional and the presentation is superb. but vinyl can be just as right and solid at the top level.......while tape has a higher ceiling when all is right.

I am fortunate that 99.9% of the music I listen is not available in tape format - so the question does not pose for me. I pick my music mostly for the performance.

Most of the reasonable doubts you have expressed were in-existent in my case, as I use as reference just the few tens of Tapeproject copies of mastertapes, well known for their quality.

Collective listening is surely a data point, as well as shows, but I valuate mainly private listening in systems or shops.

As stated in my post I was mainly addressing the " overtaking game as your digital or analog system improved, and I was a little puzzled on it." I will wait until a change of hardware or room reverses your current ranking.

 

[Al M.]

I am the only CD spinner in my group of friends who all run vinyl. We generally agree that it depends very much on the mastering whether one has an advantage over the other. Obviously choice and quality of the gear and setup are paramount but, to generalize from long experience:

Vinyl
- distortions seem to be less annoying;
- errors more of omission than intrusion;
- can be very beautiful if not always entirely accurate or complete;
- better setups with more detail have similar presentation without anything sticking out;
- noise seems to act like a lubricant that makes listening easier
Digital
- distortions seem to be more intrusive and less natural;
- errors more of commission - something added;
- best is similar to vinyl but can have more structure and precision, bigger bass;
- hi end setups will often present more detail, but not always in the most natural way;
- lack of noise can lead to an artificial dryness that is different to vinyl

To me the technical issues with digital that need to be overcome are to do with digital noise and filtering. The aliasing noise is totally unnatural and most digital filtering is little better. My own preference is for digital replay without digital filtering, but (like Audio Note) transformer filtering or (like my own) clever analog filtering.

A final thought: I watch 4K UHD blu rays on a 65" OLED tv and the contrast between restored classics and modern films is similar to vinyl vs digital. Take Hitchcock's "To Catch a Thief" vs Nolan's "Interstellar". TCAT has beautiful saturated colours, a slightly soft image with lots of grain, whilst Interstellar has a sharper more accurate picture, grain free and impressive. You could argue all day about which is better, I like both.

I agree with quite a bit of what you are saying.

Distortions of digital can indeed be more intrusive and less natural. However, the distortions can be overcome.

My new Jay's Audio CDT3 CD transport sounds much cleaner and less distorted than my previous Simaudio Moon DT 260 transport, even with the latter being extensively de-jittered by Mutec reclocking. I assume, there is much less digital noise with the new transport (which is also aided by a Mutec clock; for system, see my signature).

Similarly, my new Tambaqui DAC has far less digital distortions than my previous Yggdrasil LIM DAC, which already had sounded quite clean compared to some other digital. There is a good article (the link also has the spoken video of it) from The Absolute Sound about the Tambaqui and its addressing of digital distortions:

Best DACs Series: Mola Mola Tambaqui

The Mola Mola Tambaqui is a DAC unlike any other. The question is whether that distinction is apparent in sound quality or is just a distinction without a

www.theabsolutesound.com

Overall, with the reduction of artificial digital distortion, I don't think vinyl has a clear advantage anymore when it comes to the issue of distortions. In fact, vinyl often (not always) doesn't sound quite as clean to me as digital does ("clean" in the positive sense of purity of tone, the issue of surface noise aside). Interestingly, I do not typically hear the issue with cleanness of sound from analog tape. So it is not analog recording per se.

A friend thought that it was very difficult to get the same tonal balance from vinyl and digital. Vinyl in his system often had this extra body and bloom in the midrange compared to his digital (I heard it myself), which was more convincing and gave vinyl an edge in his system.

Yet it depends. When you have a system with digital only as you and I do, you can optimize for digital. I like to think that the tonal balance of my DAC is neutral, neither too thick nor too thin, and I get a full-bodied tone in the midrange over my amplification and speakers. If these are adding bloom to the sound, or are neutral vs other amplification and speakers that are actually thinning out the sound, may be debatable.

In any case, I get very good weight in the lower midrange, for example on orchestral low brass, as well as on cello and left hand of the piano. I have been careful with my system setup to get satisfaction in this respect -- all this is crucial to me. In fact, a friend, correctly, commented at some point that the piano left hand was too heavy, which I then took care of, also to his satisfaction. So you can overdo it, too, even with digital as a source. -- The upper midrange is quite thick as well, in a realistic sense, that is, not artificially thinned out and not tilted up frequency-wise.

When I listen to the CD box set of 27 Haydn string quartets played by the famous Amadeus Quartet (on DGG), the warm, robust, saturated, wooden tone of the instruments strongly reminds me of great vinyl and, to a certain degree, of the real thing relatively close-up in a not too large venue (the way it's usually recorded). Of course, not all recordings in this large set are the same, but I perceive this particularly strongly with the recordings of the quartets op. 64, among others.



I don't think my digital sounds dry either, not in the sense that it would not allow for hall ambience.

Digital used to have weaknesses in reproducing certain instruments or instrument groups, such as tenor saxophone, solo violin, and massed orchestral violins. Vinyl undoubtedly was better at this in the past (I had written a number of posts about this on WBF at the time, some 10 years ago). I don't hear this to be the case with my current digital anymore. Saxophone finally has the fleshed out harmonics that it should have and that I love from vinyl.

In fact, I now find the timbre of massed orchestral violins somewhat more convincing on digital than on vinyl. I have come to this conclusion after comparing on a number of occasions what I had heard from both digital and vinyl with the real thing in the concert hall (which still remains in a class of its own). Others may have different opinions, and that is fine.

PRAT (rhythm & timing) used to be a disaster on digital; it could not swing and especially not rock. It was an embarrassment compared to any good vinyl (I am very picky when it comes to this musical attribute). Early "bitstream" DACs back in the day (early 1990s) were the worst, most lame, offenders, but PCM DACs had their problems, too. I went through six CD players/CD playback combos until the problem was close to be solved. I now consider this problem completely gone, at least on some digital like mine. When it comes to rhythmic performance, my digital is a wild rock & roll animal.

 

[JohnP]

Rather than argue or debate about which format is better, I would be much more interested in a discussion about how they sound different and why. Many of the analog versus digital discussions are about how one format sounds more and more like the other as it improves, but that does not begin to explain what I consider to be a much more fascinating discussion about their individual sounds. I am not talking about pops and clicks and poor pressings or convenience and access to unlimited streaming. I am also not interested in why people choose what they do. Their choices are theirs and their systems are for them to enjoy.

I would like to know how someone who has both vinyl and digital in the same system would describe the different listening experiences or presentations, and what might cause those differences. I want to avoid a debate about which format individuals think is better. I would like to learn what people actually hear as differences between the formats. We seem to be able to discuss differences between speaker types and amplifier types by pointing out strengths and weaknesses of each without getting into arguments. Some even prefer some speaker types for some genres of music. For amplifiers, it usually comes down to ability to drive speakers, but in both cases, people describe what they actually hear from specific typologies.

I used to visit a good friend who had both high-level vinyl and digital in his system and we would sit around, listen and compare the two formats, often with the same recording on one then on the other and then discuss what we heard. It was always fun and we learned some things for ourselves and from each other. These gatherings were never argumentative or combative.

I would like to try to have such a discussion with the members here and see where it leads us. What differences do we hear, and how do they affect the listening experience?

I listen mostly to classical recordings, and I attend concerts and operas so my impressions of digital and analog recordings are based on listening to live classical music.
Digital sounds more like what I hear at a concert here in Dallas. The sound is clear, open and refined. LPs sound warmer with a beautiful tone, and the ambience of a hall can be heard more clearly with vinyl.
The quality of the recording makes a bigger difference in my enjoyment of the music than the format.
John

 

[microstrip]

I listen mostly to classical recordings, and I attend concerts and operas so my impressions of digital and analog recordings are based on listening to live classical music.
Digital sounds more like what I hear at a concert here in Dallas. The sound is clear, open and refined.

Ok.

LPs sound warmer with a beautiful tone, and the ambience of a hall can be heard more clearly with vinyl.

In fact we can expect it. Vinyl artifacts are known to enhance ambience by mechanisms such as harmonic coloration and masking and using low level noise as perceptual dither. Since long sound engineers learned how to use the "problems" of vinyl to enhance our listening experience and ambience was one of their favorite cards. Note how music listeners appreciate recordings carried in halls such as Concertgebouw or Kingsway, and recordings with added reverberation, such as ECM recordings and many great jazz performances.

However, formats handle ambience in a different ways - as some people say vinyl gives ambience by addition, top digital does it by preservation. Listen to top modern digital recordings by 2L and you will notice the reverberation characteristics of cathedrals with great detail.

Please note that the vinyl addition includes using special microphone techniques that enhance ambience.

The quality of the recording makes a bigger difference in my enjoyment of the music than the format.
John

Surely.

 

[JohnP]

Ok.



In fact we can expect it. Vinyl artifacts are known to enhance ambience by mechanisms such as harmonic coloration and masking and using low level noise as perceptual dither. Since long sound engineers learned how to use the "problems" of vinyl to enhance our listening experience and ambience was one of their favorite cards. Note how music listeners appreciate recordings carried in halls such as Concertgebouw or Kingsway, and recordings with added reverberation, such as ECM recordings and many great jazz performances.

However, formats handle ambience in a different ways - as some people say vinyl gives ambience by addition, top digital does it by preservation. Listen to top modern digital recordings by 2L and you will notice the reverberation characteristics of cathedrals with great detail.

Please note that the vinyl addition includes using special microphone techniques that enhance ambience.



Surely.

I went to Boston last week and had a chance to attend a concert. I’ve never heard classical music sound better. The ambience and nuance of Symphony Hall were outstanding. Definitely better than the Meyerson Hall in Dallas. The subtleties of Symphony Hall added a great deal to my experience. The subtleties in recordings also make a huge difference independent of format.
John

 

[Al M.]

I went to Boston last week and had a chance to attend a concert. I’ve never heard classical music sound better. The ambience and nuance of Symphony Hall were outstanding. Definitely better than the Meyerson Hall in Dallas. The subtleties of Symphony Hall added a great deal to my experience. The subtleties in recordings also make a huge difference independent of format.
John

Yes, Boston Symphony Hall is amazing. I live a 40 minute drive away from Boston and have had the pleasure to attend concerts there many times.

Boston has another wonderful concert hall as well, Jordan Hall of the New England Conservatory (a few minutes walk from Symphony Hall). The acoustics are warm but clear. I reported on a recent Mahler 5 performance here (post #1090, with pictures):

Recent Concerts You've Enjoyed

Thought this might be a fun thread and a way to find out about acts on tour. My wife and I saw the Smoke Fairies at the Tractor Tavern last evening as the opening act for Rasputina. The Smoke Fairies are a 'folk blues' duo from Wales and have been described as "Bob Dylan's dream." I thought...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[JohnP]

Yes, Boston Symphony Hall is amazing. I live a 40 minute drive away from Boston and have had the pleasure to attend concerts there many times.

I’m jealous! I’m coming back in April for a couple more concerts.

Boston has another wonderful concert hall as well, Jordan Hall of the New England Conservatory (a few minutes walk from Symphony Hall). The acoustics are warm but clear. I reported on a recent Mahler 5 performance here (post #1090, with pictures):

Recent Concerts You've Enjoyed

Thought this might be a fun thread and a way to find out about acts on tour. My wife and I saw the Smoke Fairies at the Tractor Tavern last evening as the opening act for Rasputina. The Smoke Fairies are a 'folk blues' duo from Wales and have been described as "Bob Dylan's dream." I thought...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Rexp]

I agree with quite a bit of what you are saying.

Distortions of digital can indeed be more intrusive and less natural. However, the distortions can be overcome.

My new Jay's Audio CDT3 CD transport sounds much cleaner and less distorted than my previous Simaudio Moon DT 260 transport, even with the latter being extensively de-jittered by Mutec reclocking. I assume, there is much less digital noise with the new transport (which is also aided by a Mutec clock; for system, see my signature).

Similarly, my new Tambaqui DAC has far less digital distortions than my previous Yggdrasil LIM DAC, which already had sounded quite clean compared to some other digital. There is a good article (the link also has the spoken video of it) from The Absolute Sound about the Tambaqui and its addressing of digital distortions:

Best DACs Series: Mola Mola Tambaqui

The Mola Mola Tambaqui is a DAC unlike any other. The question is whether that distinction is apparent in sound quality or is just a distinction without a

www.theabsolutesound.com

Overall, with the reduction of artificial digital distortion, I don't think vinyl has a clear advantage anymore when it comes to the issue of distortions. In fact, vinyl often (not always) doesn't sound quite as clean to me as digital does ("clean" in the positive sense of purity of tone, the issue of surface noise aside). Interestingly, I do not typically hear the issue with cleanness of sound from analog tape. So it is not analog recording per se.

A friend thought that it was very difficult to get the same tonal balance from vinyl and digital. Vinyl in his system often had this extra body and bloom in the midrange compared to his digital (I heard it myself), which was more convincing and gave vinyl an edge in his system.

Yet it depends. When you have a system with digital only as you and I do, you can optimize for digital. I like to think that the tonal balance of my DAC is neutral, neither too thick nor too thin, and I get a full-bodied tone in the midrange over my amplification and speakers. If these are adding bloom to the sound, or are neutral vs other amplification and speakers that are actually thinning out the sound, may be debatable.

In any case, I get very good weight in the lower midrange, for example on orchestral low brass, as well as on cello and left hand of the piano. I have been careful with my system setup to get satisfaction in this respect -- all this is crucial to me. In fact, a friend, correctly, commented at some point that the piano left hand was too heavy, which I then took care of, also to his satisfaction. So you can overdo it, too, even with digital as a source. -- The upper midrange is quite thick as well, in a realistic sense, that is, not artificially thinned out and not tilted up frequency-wise.

When I listen to the CD box set of 27 Haydn string quartets played by the famous Amadeus Quartet (on DGG), the warm, robust, saturated, wooden tone of the instruments strongly reminds me of great vinyl and, to a certain degree, of the real thing relatively close-up in a not too large venue (the way it's usually recorded). Of course, not all recordings in this large set are the same, but I perceive this particularly strongly with the recordings of the quartets op. 64, among others.

View attachment 159654

I don't think my digital sounds dry either, not in the sense that it would not allow for hall ambience.

Digital used to have weaknesses in reproducing certain instruments or instrument groups, such as tenor saxophone, solo violin, and massed orchestral violins. Vinyl undoubtedly was better at this in the past (I had written a number of posts about this on WBF at the time, some 10 years ago). I don't hear this to be the case with my current digital anymore. Saxophone finally has the fleshed out harmonics that it should have and that I love from vinyl.

In fact, I now find the timbre of massed orchestral violins somewhat more convincing on digital than on vinyl. I have come to this conclusion after comparing on a number of occasions what I had heard from both digital and vinyl with the real thing in the concert hall (which still remains in a class of its own). Others may have different opinions, and that is fine.

PRAT (rhythm & timing) used to be a disaster on digital; it could not swing and especially not rock. It was an embarrassment compared to any good vinyl (I am very picky when it comes to this musical attribute). Early "bitstream" DACs back in the day (early 1990s) were the worst, most lame, offenders, but PCM DACs had their problems, too. I went through six CD players/CD playback combos until the problem was close to be solved. I now consider this problem completely gone, at least on some digital like mine. When it comes to rhythmic performance, my digital is a wild rock & roll animal.

A video of your system playing some swinging jazz would confirm whether it swings or not.

Here's a video of another members system using Jays CD transport, what do you think of the sound and how does your system differ?

 

[tima]

A video of your system playing some swinging jazz would confirm whether it swings or not.

@Al M. your self-praising words about your system warrant sonic evidence. Thinking a video does not represent your system is not a reason to avoid one -- let others assess its character on their own. No one claims that a video and in-room listening are the same, but phone recordings tell more truth than not. I say very little to convince people about my own system's sound and let my videos speak directly to others. Give it a try.

 

[Al M.]

@Al M. your self-praising words about your system warrant sonic evidence. Thinking a video does not represent your system is not a reason to avoid one -- let others assess its character on their own. No one claims that a video and in-room listening are the same, but phone recordings tell more truth than not. I say very little to convince people about my own system's sound and let my videos speak directly to others. Give it a try.

Tim, I don't need to explain for the umpteenth time why I do not post system videos, as so many others on WBF do not do as well, for similar reasons.

If you want to hear my system, please come over to my place and listen! Then you can get all the sonic evidence you wish for. I'll be happy to have you here.

 

[bonzo75]

@Al M. your self-praising words about your system warrant sonic evidence. Thinking a video does not represent your system is not a reason to avoid one -- let others assess its character on their own. No one claims that a video and in-room listening are the same, but phone recordings tell more truth than not. I say very little to convince people about my own system's sound and let my videos speak directly to others. Give it a try.

And it works. I noticed changes/improvements in your system without you writing about it. There is evidence on the forum. Today with Abeidrov on the grandinote thread there was total agreement with his in room experiments (on a side note, quite interesting how he got a successful large orchestral video with Jadis out immediately on set up while “industry experts” with Jadis are unable to do so after years of set up