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

[Al M.]

Approaching this subject as a "we are all friends here" thing.

I will add more subjective bloviation....

Digital has fantastic channel separation. Vinyl, great, but less. For many people, this may benefit vinyl: I think getting speaker placement just right is tougher with digital. Maybe vinyl's lesser channel separation makes speaker placement slightly less crucial for many...making a more pleasant experience regarding imaging.

Vinyl is also more prone to even order harmonic distortion, which, with tubes, we may find more pleasing than digital.

I like a three dimensional soundstage. In the grand scheme of things, this is more important to me than other parameters...if trade offs need to be made. I like/love it with vinyl but, sometimes, digital can be positively eerie.

The question is, when does better channel separation become inaudible?

Here is an interesting discussion that seems to suggest that the channel separation of vinyl may be just fine:

Channel separation...how much is enough...how much is not?

I will posit that 30 db or more channel separation is enough. More than that is not audible. In fact 17 db or so is enough. So why is a device with only 70 db of channel separation described as "poor channel separation"? Poor versus what is possible? Yes. Poor versus what is audible, not...

www.audiosciencereview.com

From the discussion:

Q: How much separation does our head and ears really have anyway when listening to loudspeakers in a typical room?

A: 17 db with loudspeakers.

I don't know if this number is true, but clearly you cannot get digital-like channel separation between ears listening to speakers in a room.

 

[PeterA]

Approaching this subject as a "we are all friends here" thing.

I will add more subjective bloviation....

Digital has fantastic channel separation. Vinyl, great, but less. For many people, this may benefit vinyl: I think getting speaker placement just right is tougher with digital. Maybe vinyl's lesser channel separation makes speaker placement slightly less crucial for many...making a more pleasant experience regarding imaging.

Vinyl is also more prone to even order harmonic distortion, which, with tubes, we may find more pleasing than digital.

I like a three dimensional soundstage. In the grand scheme of things, this is more important to me than other parameters...if trade offs need to be made. I like/love it with vinyl but, sometimes, digital can be positively eerie.

Thank you for this post. It’s one of the few that actually answers the question I asked in the original post. I appreciate it.

 

[microstrip]

The question is, when does better channel separation become inaudible?

Here is an interesting discussion that seems to suggest that the channel separation of vinyl may be just fine:

Channel separation...how much is enough...how much is not?

I will posit that 30 db or more channel separation is enough. More than that is not audible. In fact 17 db or so is enough. So why is a device with only 70 db of channel separation described as "poor channel separation"? Poor versus what is possible? Yes. Poor versus what is audible, not...

www.audiosciencereview.com

From the discussion:

Q: How much separation does our head and ears really have anyway when listening to loudspeakers in a typical room?

A: 17 db with loudspeakers.

I don't know if this number is true, but clearly you cannot get digital-like channel separation between ears listening to speakers in a room.

The point here is that almost everyone accepts that complete separation of left and right channels can improve subjective sound quality.

 

[Al M.]

The point here is that almost everyone accepts that complete separation of left and right channels can improve subjective sound quality.

Well, apparently that idea is challenged by the discussion that I cited.

 

[Anton D]

Well, apparently that idea is challenged by the discussion that I cited.

What’s best vs what’s ’good enough?’



Would you settle for a cartridge with 17 dB channel separation? Or an amp or digital source?

An LP can have 40 dB separation, I ‘settle’ for 30-35.

So, we strive to reproduce as much of the signal as possible.

For binaural listening, people can readily hear improvements out to 30 dB.

You made a good point about the minimum spec but I think there is data validating going beyond 17 dB.

Anyway, beyond what minimal parameter we should settle for, my question was regarding whether digital’s added separation could make optimum placement tougher. I don’t have data for that, only speculation!

 

[tima]

Would you settle for a cartridge with 17 dB channel separation?

No. Most cartridges will include a channel separation spec. 30db at 1Khz is a good number, higher is better. It can be worthwhile to measure with azimuth test tracks.

 

[microstrip]

No. Most cartridges will include a channel separation spec. 30db at 1Khz is a good number, higher is better. It can be worthwhile to measure with azimuth test tracks.

Yes. In fact if we do not optimize azimuth with a test LP and measurements we will not get such good values. Some people claim that improper (just geometrical adjustment) can degrade crosstalk for as much as 7 dB.

But we know that many vinyl aficionados prefer to rely on their ears.

 

[Another Johnson]

The OP wondered about our listening experience.

For me, vinyl is a labor of love. I find the record in my stacks. I clean the record. I check my stylus. I hop up out of my seat every 10 to 25 minutes to change sides. It is more exercise, and more focused engagement.

Digital streaming is more relaxed. I decide which DAC/streamer to use. I find the album with a search. I play it. While I play it, I may create a queue of three or four more albums. I let it run without having to do any other “work.” If I don’t like a cut, I skip over it or remove it from the queue. If I really like a cut, I may repeat it. If an album is on Prime, but not on Qobuz, I just switch to Prime (or vice versa).

I might find five versions of something and play them all. Streaming is far easier and more versatile.

As for sound quality, vinyl is better sometimes and digital is better others. It took me several years to get streaming to the point where it was truly excellent… but for me, it was worth the effort. YMMV.

 

[PeterA]

The OP wondered about our listening experience.

For me, vinyl is a labor of love. I find the record in my stacks. I clean the record. I check my stylus. I hop up out of my seat every 10 to 25 minutes to change sides. It is more exercise, and more focused engagement.

Digital streaming is more relaxed. I decide which DAC/streamer to use. I find the album with a search. I play it. While I play it, I may create a queue of three or four more albums. I let it run without having to do any other “work.” If I don’t like a cut, I skip over it or remove it from the queue. If I really like a cut, I may repeat it. If an album is on Prime, but not on Qobuz, I just switch to Prime (or vice versa).

I might find five versions of something and play them all. Streaming is far easier and more versatile.

As for sound quality, vinyl is better sometimes and digital is better others. It took me several years to get streaming to the point where it was truly excellent… but for me, it was worth the effort. YMMV.

Thank you for your comments, but respectfully, you don’t answer the question I ask. How do the two actually sound different to you? If you play a recording of a piano on vinyl and then the same or similar recording of a piano on digital, how does the piano actually sound different in both cases? Is one fuller, more resonant, more strident, bigger, smaller, more impactful, more dynamic more weight? Which sounds more balanced and natural to you? Do these differences hold up on other recordings?

 

[Another Johnson]

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

That’s your title, not mine.

Peter said:
Thank you for your comments, but respectfully, you don’t answer the question I ask. How do the two actually sound different to you? If you play a recording of a piano on vinyl and then the same or similar recording of a piano on digital, how does the piano actually sound different in both cases? Is one fuller, more resonant, more strident, bigger, smaller, more impactful, more dynamic more weight? Which sounds more balanced and natural to you? Do these differences hold up on other recordings?
**********

Since you’re asking now by suggesting answers…

In my experience this whole line of questioning suggests a lack of experience actually listening to a wide range of recordings that are duplicated in analog and digital. If someone were to generalize that digital sounds this way while analog sounds that way, even if limited to a particular instrument, I would privately think to myself that the bloke was a few lumps of coal short of a tonne. How a recording sounds depends on the performance of both the musician and the others in the production/reproduction chain. Good digital sounds better (more real) than bad analog and vice versa.

There is no music in the absence of sound but there is plenty of sound in the absence of music. Most sound in life is just noise on the signal. Natural or otherwise.

 

[wil]

Thank you for your comments, but respectfully, you don’t answer the question I ask. How do the two actually sound different to you? If you play a recording of a piano on vinyl and then the same or similar recording of a piano on digital, how does the piano actually sound different in both cases? Is one fuller, more resonant, more strident, bigger, smaller, more impactful, more dynamic more weight? Which sounds more balanced and natural to you? Do these differences hold up on other recordings?

I don’t see, with all the variables from recording to recording and individual playback systems, how one can parse out the differences you’re looking for.

 

[PeterA]

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

That’s your title, not mine.

Yes. Listening not the ritual or the convenience or the preparation or selection of the music. I’m interested in what people actually hear from the two mediums. We have lots of other threads about the ritual, the convenience, one’s preference, the future of the industry, etc..

That’s fine. After five pages, few people have actually answered the question I posed in the original post.

 

[PeterA]

I don’t see, with all the variables from recording to recording and individual playback systems, how one can parse out the differences you’re looking for.

Yes, I understand that, wil. I am not asking about possible causes for differences. I am simply asking those who have both formats in the same system to share their listening impressions about how the two formats may or may not sound different from each other. I understand that recordings are different. I’m curious about specific sonic impressions, which may or not then be generalized to improve understanding of the various formats.

Imagine the person with only one format. We have many examples on the forum of people describing what they actually hear when they sit down to listen to music from that format. Just read one of Tim‘s reviews for an example of this. I tried to do the same in the first few pages of my system thread. Spiritofmusic recently did a good job describing the sound of a system he visited. Interestingly, it seems to become more difficult to describe what one hears from two different formats in the same system. There are a lot of posts on this thread, but very few actually address the original post.

 

[Zuman]

How do vinyl and digital sound different in my modest system?
-In my system, digital sounds more spatially immersive. Sometimes that means it sounds more realistic; sometimes that means it sounds less realistic. One consistently-good attribute: my digital always has more front-to-rear soundstage differentiation than my vinyl.
-In my system, vinyl sounds more tonally rich. The sounds of both voices and instruments feel like they have more substance and dimensionality. Notes and timbres seem more palpable, more like you can actually "feel" them.
I find it easier to tune the sound of my digital system to my mood and to room, atmospheric, and other variables. Changing between network, USB, and AES inputs on my DAC changes the sound significantly, with AES/EBU sounding the most like vinyl. Interestingly, choosing AES/EBU also results in a slight reduction in spatial immersion ala my analogue side.
I have a very nice pair of Leica Ultravid binoculars. When I use them, the image has extraordinary contrast, brightness, and focus. It's actually quite beautiful. They remind me of my digital side. The image directly from my unaided eyes reminds me more of my vinyl sound, and I know that there's nothing between me and what I'm seeing.

 

[Lee]

I have been thinking more and more about the convergence of reference analog and digital.

In the past, vinyl seemed more musical to me. Vocals in particular were lifelike. I was always sensitive to timing issues on digital. Something was off. Digital maybe had wider bandwidth but there was just something right and natural about vinyl. Even in my own system with a really nice implementation of a Rossini Apex, my much more expensive table (unfair comparison I know) has an ease of presentation that seems more lifelike.

However, the advent of the dCS Varese created vocals that are positively lifelike (I have heard this on three systems) with no digital hash or artifacts that I can hear. I would argue reference digital has finally converged with reference analog.

If you are lucky enough to have a reference table and DAC, the arguably it’s more about the availability of music and the highest quality of masterings.

 

[Rexp]

I have been thinking more and more about the convergence of reference analog and digital.

In the past, vinyl seemed more musical to me. Vocals in particular were lifelike. I was always sensitive to timing issues on digital. Something was off. Digital maybe had wider bandwidth but there was just something right and natural about vinyl. Even in my own system with a really nice implementation of a Rossini Apex, my much more expensive table (unfair comparison I know) has an ease of presentation that seems more lifelike.

However, the advent of the dCS Varese created vocals that are positively lifelike (I have heard this on three systems) with no digital hash or artifacts that I can hear. I would argue reference digital has finally converged with reference analog.

If you are lucky enough to have a reference table and DAC, the arguably it’s more about the availability of music and the highest quality of masterings.

Why am I reminded of the boy who cried wolf..

 

[Lee]

Why am I reminded of the boy who cried wolf..

??

 

[Rexp]

??

Well how many times have we heard 'digital now matches analog' over the years? I see you did caveat it by saying at reference level, which may be true. Problem is very few digital releases are reference level.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well how many times have we heard 'digital now matches analog' over the years?

+1

 

[Another Johnson]

Well how many times have we heard 'digital now matches analog' over the years? I see you did caveat it by saying at reference level, which may be true. Problem is very few digital releases are reference level.

Well, at first we heard that digital was “incorruptibly perfect sound forever.” Analog looked at the landscape and poured on the afterburners to improve … and they were, for many parts, successful. The battle goes back and forth, with strong advocates on both sides.

Like a Tennis match, each side strikes in turn. I think the score has been tied many times. There is no deception here. Both sides make advances.

For all practical purposes, threads like this tell you more about the posters than about digital or vinyl.

I think analog and digital are competitive with each other, and have been for a long time. As for @Rexp, we’ve heard the proclamation many times … and if you look at the real music listener marketplace, it certainly rings true. Dollar volume of Vinyl sales may be thriving, but the cost per stream is sooooo low, the sheer volume of music consumed through streaming is nearly unfathomable.