The AF One I heard had both a Graham arm and the SME 3012R. It sounded better with the latter.
Vinyl and Digital: How does the sound or listening experience differ?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
The AF One I heard had both a Graham arm and the SME 3012R. It sounded better with the latter.
Well, we disagree . I also had both and an SMEV, and after an initial appeal for the immediacy of the SME3012R I found it missed the fine detail and musicality of the other tonearms in complex music. Great for Paniagua instrumental recordings, but inadequate to show the best of the AF One Premium in my music. I was sorry for it, it was great value for money, but too colored for my taste. It complemented the EMT927 with much more coherence.
I often compare Redbook cd's to their (analog) vinyl counterparts. in every case, the records have noticeably more low frequency resolution allowing me to hear greater weight and heft of the instruments, as well as more air and space around them. The latter of which is also apparent throughout the entire frequency range.
The analog recordings on the records are more realistic in its portrayal of timbre and harmonics leading to a much more palpable listening experience.
This is in addition to the often present high frequency distortion, weird compression-like exaggeration of the leading edges and wholly synthetic fabric of sound that makes a Redbook recording stand out.
The analog recordings on the records are more realistic in its portrayal of timbre and harmonics leading to a much more palpable listening experience.
This is in addition to the often present high frequency distortion, weird compression-like exaggeration of the leading edges and wholly synthetic fabric of sound that makes a Redbook recording stand out.
There isn't one digital sound, nor is there one vinyl sound. Circa 1985 - 1998 there was one, or the other. But after that things got progressively blurry. Is a digital recording captured in vinyl, still altogether digital? When all the upsampling/oversampling techniques got reasonably competent did all digital still sound the same? It turns out it took about as long for digital to sound natural and for the production chain to learn how to exploit it, as it did for vinyl to reach a state of nirvanah that everyone became nostalgic about anchored in circa 1980. So digital today isn't the digital when the divide was stark.
Now, for context, understand I've been vinyl-first both involuntarily and voluntarily for 70 years, and a digital participant since 1982 (well, ok, I did buy Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" on digital vinyl in 1979). And have been ambidextrous since, partly because during the great vinyl sag in the early and mid-90s, a lot of music just wasn't released on anything but CD. Also, I'm a lifelong vacuum tube listener, again both involuntarily because I was born before the transistor, and voluntarily because I've *generally* but not always preferred well-executed tube sound.
So, 40 years ago, digital sounded "etched" and vinyl analog sounded "flowing." The first cue that the gap could be narrowed was the Wadia CD players in the mid-to-late 1990s. Not altogether, but that was the first digital gear that lurched in the direction of naturalness heard in vinyl, without the vinyl noise, dynamic limits and smeary artifacts. It took another 20 years fo make vinyl vs. digital an either/or choice without serious consequence.
Vocabulary limits describing the difference(s) between analog and digital. Forget about R-to-R tape. It's too limited and expensive to be a serious comparator. I've done tape. Now, if I want to hear tape, I go to Ron's house to hear his necessarily-limited but very fine collection. For most people, analog means vinyl. Respecting the fact that modern digital, including streaming Qobuz 192/24 or listening to downloaded DSD XXX, along with Redbook, digital sounds incisive, penetrating as to the sonic events' details; vinyl analog (or Ron's tapes for that matter) sounds more "organic," of the natural world. The differences are both ethereal and lasting in the impression made upon you.
Back in '21 or '22 when I got my Bricast M21 Platinum, Ron Resnick visited. You know, he's not a digital preferrer. He's a digital antagonist. The Bricasti M21 has sigma-delta processing, along with R2R and native, analog-domain DSD. Ron was especially interested in the R2R sound and he could freely switch between sigma-delta and R2R processing during play, via remote control. His reaction on R2R was "...that's pretty close to analog..." He didn't want to say he preferred it to analog nor that it was equal, but it was digital in the realm. Which is another way of saying that (at some expense) the gear associated with each affects the comparative outcomes.
20 years ago, I would have almost universally preferred the analog vinyl to a CD or digital file copy of a given analog recording. Today, with improvements to DACs, masterings, and base recordings, analog/digital differences are much less consistent. I hear some all-digital music that has more flow, fluidity & organic realism than the same music on analog format. And I hear some analog vinyl that has a naturalness I've never heard digital touch. It took 40 years, but we now live in a time when both digital and analog have their own weights to place on the balance scale.
Ten years ago, my listening ratio, analog:digital, was 70:30. That was before I was streaming and put the effort into evaluating streamers, plus settled on a DAC upgrade from decisions made circa 2011. Now, I can often find analog qualities in many digital recordings, and digital traits in modern vinyl discs. My listening ratio is now 55:45. But a note: I've been immersed in hifi continuously since I spent my first dollar on it in 1968. After digital hit, we started seeing a vocabulary that described the "warmth" of vinyl. I still have no idea what vinyl "warmth" is. Similarly, when I am on the jazzguitar forum and people talk about the Gibson ES-175 having a "thunk" that other similar hollowbodies lack, I have to say I've never heard any sound out of an ES-175 that equates to "thunk" for me. So, in hifi vinyl "warmth" is my thunk and in guitars, "thunk" is my vinyl warmth. Neither make sense. I still have an attraction to the organic continuity and flow of analog over the incisiveness, precision and dynamic power of digital. But now it's just an observation. The difference matters not to my ability to immerse myself in the music I want to listen to. However, when convenience is king, Qobuz and Tidal digital win.
Phil
Now, for context, understand I've been vinyl-first both involuntarily and voluntarily for 70 years, and a digital participant since 1982 (well, ok, I did buy Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" on digital vinyl in 1979). And have been ambidextrous since, partly because during the great vinyl sag in the early and mid-90s, a lot of music just wasn't released on anything but CD. Also, I'm a lifelong vacuum tube listener, again both involuntarily because I was born before the transistor, and voluntarily because I've *generally* but not always preferred well-executed tube sound.
So, 40 years ago, digital sounded "etched" and vinyl analog sounded "flowing." The first cue that the gap could be narrowed was the Wadia CD players in the mid-to-late 1990s. Not altogether, but that was the first digital gear that lurched in the direction of naturalness heard in vinyl, without the vinyl noise, dynamic limits and smeary artifacts. It took another 20 years fo make vinyl vs. digital an either/or choice without serious consequence.
Vocabulary limits describing the difference(s) between analog and digital. Forget about R-to-R tape. It's too limited and expensive to be a serious comparator. I've done tape. Now, if I want to hear tape, I go to Ron's house to hear his necessarily-limited but very fine collection. For most people, analog means vinyl. Respecting the fact that modern digital, including streaming Qobuz 192/24 or listening to downloaded DSD XXX, along with Redbook, digital sounds incisive, penetrating as to the sonic events' details; vinyl analog (or Ron's tapes for that matter) sounds more "organic," of the natural world. The differences are both ethereal and lasting in the impression made upon you.
Back in '21 or '22 when I got my Bricast M21 Platinum, Ron Resnick visited. You know, he's not a digital preferrer. He's a digital antagonist. The Bricasti M21 has sigma-delta processing, along with R2R and native, analog-domain DSD. Ron was especially interested in the R2R sound and he could freely switch between sigma-delta and R2R processing during play, via remote control. His reaction on R2R was "...that's pretty close to analog..." He didn't want to say he preferred it to analog nor that it was equal, but it was digital in the realm. Which is another way of saying that (at some expense) the gear associated with each affects the comparative outcomes.
20 years ago, I would have almost universally preferred the analog vinyl to a CD or digital file copy of a given analog recording. Today, with improvements to DACs, masterings, and base recordings, analog/digital differences are much less consistent. I hear some all-digital music that has more flow, fluidity & organic realism than the same music on analog format. And I hear some analog vinyl that has a naturalness I've never heard digital touch. It took 40 years, but we now live in a time when both digital and analog have their own weights to place on the balance scale.
Ten years ago, my listening ratio, analog:digital, was 70:30. That was before I was streaming and put the effort into evaluating streamers, plus settled on a DAC upgrade from decisions made circa 2011. Now, I can often find analog qualities in many digital recordings, and digital traits in modern vinyl discs. My listening ratio is now 55:45. But a note: I've been immersed in hifi continuously since I spent my first dollar on it in 1968. After digital hit, we started seeing a vocabulary that described the "warmth" of vinyl. I still have no idea what vinyl "warmth" is. Similarly, when I am on the jazzguitar forum and people talk about the Gibson ES-175 having a "thunk" that other similar hollowbodies lack, I have to say I've never heard any sound out of an ES-175 that equates to "thunk" for me. So, in hifi vinyl "warmth" is my thunk and in guitars, "thunk" is my vinyl warmth. Neither make sense. I still have an attraction to the organic continuity and flow of analog over the incisiveness, precision and dynamic power of digital. But now it's just an observation. The difference matters not to my ability to immerse myself in the music I want to listen to. However, when convenience is king, Qobuz and Tidal digital win.
Phil
Last edited:
Can you give an example of an all digital release on Tidal that has more flow and realism than the same (or did you mean similar?) music on analog format?
"Analog format" means playback via analog means even if the the physical medium is digital fed. So, a digital-mastered vinyl LP is played back by analog means, but often sounds inferior to the streamed all-digital version. Finding an all-analog recording mirrored against an all-digital recording of same will take some mining, if it exists. -Phil
Phil, this is the kind of observation I was hoping to read when I started this thread and asked the question. Thank you for this.
A beautifully written and very balanced post, thank you, Phil.
Personally I am not even sure about flow vs incisiveness anymore. Also, this issue is not just a matter of medium, but of system context and setup.
It is funny how many audiophiles will praise their favorite DAC as sounding « analog ». There is no such thing as « digital » sound.
The vinyl records that I appreciate over their digital counterparts simply sound more vivid - sharper. With older recordings (99% of what I listen to) I believe this has to do with recording technique and the digital transfer process. I listen to vinyl with an ADC and a DAC…
One thing to note: I love digital on headphones. I never listen to vinyl with headphones.
The vinyl records that I appreciate over their digital counterparts simply sound more vivid - sharper. With older recordings (99% of what I listen to) I believe this has to do with recording technique and the digital transfer process. I listen to vinyl with an ADC and a DAC…
One thing to note: I love digital on headphones. I never listen to vinyl with headphones.
Last edited:
Even though at home I am digital only, for a long time I thought it still had limitations that analog (vinyl) did not have, and I have been quite vocal about this in the past. Vinyl, which I listened to in friends' systems, still used to be a reference for me for a long time.
I have moved on from that.
I don’t hear any clear advantage of vinyl anymore *).
My only real reference now is unamplified live music. Any recording medium and playback falls short when it comes to this. On the other hand, I am happy and thrilled with what home reproduction can achieve relative to it, limitations notwithstanding.
True. Digital, as 0s and 1s, has no sound.
_______________________
*) Of course, there are always individual masterings that sound better on vinyl than on digital -- just like the other way around -- but I am talking about a meaningful, persistent, intrinsic advantage.
Last edited:
Although I am always happy to find in my system aspects that remind me of previous experiences of life performances, for me live music is too far from reproduced music to be considered as a "reference" . I would risk to say say that frequently the best systems I have listened with recordings I know well become more my reference than real music. And more than that, my enjoyment is my fundamental guide - a dangerous reference, I accept it.
This is an important part of the hobby.
Surely. But the usual connotation is that digital sound is the presence of digital artifacts and freedom of analog (tape or vinyl) artifacts. There is no perfection in sound reproduction.
On my last count, I have 282 titles on 15 ips 2-track format, mostly copied from production or safety masters, with a handful from edited work parts, and almost 400 titles on commercial 7.5 ips 2-track and 4-track tapes. I have transferred all my tapes to DSD128. I am pretty happy listening to the files when I don't want to bother with or wear down the tapes. DSD does not have the usual artifacts associated with PCM digital, and for me is an acceptable alternative to analogue. When I have the LP of a recording that I have transferred from tape to DSD, I prefer the DSD most of the time. Almost all of my LPs are from the 1960s and 70s, bought mostly second hand in the UK when I was a student in the early 1980s, and they are very variable in quality and can be very frustrating. I have relatively few modern reissues, and most of those I find disappointing. I have a handful of the new DGG Original source series and I do find these worthwhile.
Well, 0s and 1s aside, there are a range of sound qualities associated with digital processing. The software, chip, ingestion, and conversion technologies are wide ranging and as variable in their sonic fingerprints as are phono cartridges and phono preamps.
I have four tonearms in use and also four single-input phono preamps. Two of them are ADC phono pres for which their analog output is obtained via DACs. There are definitely some advantages to ADC>DAC phonographic signal processing and I can listen to it without feeling compelled to bolt back to pure analog phono preamplification as soon as humanly possible. But the two are not the same, nor do I expect them to be. They are enjoyable and acceptable for different reasons, along with their overlap in overall fidelity attributes.
Phil
Last edited:
All I can say is that the Air Force One Premium is an end-game turntable. It’s as neutral as it gets, with an incredibly lively and dynamic presentation. If you don’t hear it that way, then there’s something wrong with your setup ability, knowledge, tonearm/cartridge matching, overall system synergy, or simply the way you discern instruments. It’s one of the finest turntables ever built—if not the best. SME, EMT, and similar “top” turntables or DIY turntables are a joke compared to the AF1P, especially the ones without vacuum hold-down. Without proper vacuum hold-down you lose perfect coupling to the platter and fail to eliminate micro-vibrations. That’s why they sound colored.
I haven’t heard the AF0 or the Wilson Benesch turntable yet; they might outperform it, but I can’t comment.
By the way, the real star of TechDAS is the AF10 tonearm. It’s unbelievably detailed, smooth, dynamic, and lifelike. The only real caveat is being precise with anti-skating—and doing that before anything else. Another important point is avoiding dynamic-balance VTF and using the rear weight instead. And if you pair it with the original titanium armboard, you’re all set. Nothing else comes close. Second best is the AS Axiom, and third is the SAT CF1-09. But with all of these arms, you need to know exactly what you’re doing during setup.
That’s my view.
I haven’t heard the AF0 or the Wilson Benesch turntable yet; they might outperform it, but I can’t comment.
By the way, the real star of TechDAS is the AF10 tonearm. It’s unbelievably detailed, smooth, dynamic, and lifelike. The only real caveat is being precise with anti-skating—and doing that before anything else. Another important point is avoiding dynamic-balance VTF and using the rear weight instead. And if you pair it with the original titanium armboard, you’re all set. Nothing else comes close. Second best is the AS Axiom, and third is the SAT CF1-09. But with all of these arms, you need to know exactly what you’re doing during setup.
That’s my view.
I have recently heard the TechDAS Air Force One in Steve Williams' system and it sounded very lively and dynamic indeed. Stories that somehow the sound of that turntable is lifeless and dead are incomprehensible to me.
These are wise words about tape. The way I put it very simply is: "Just because it's tape doesn't tell you anything about sound quality."
I understand that people love to boast on the internet about stuff they own, but how does this post answer the opening topic?
Without doing any of that the differences between pressings has been obvious on my system for decades.
LPs have very low distortion, much lower than most people think. Its quite a lot lower than tape and has wider bandwidth. But its also expensive to master, so much so that a number of time-saving devices have been developed to reduce the time needed to engineer the groove. An example is a mono bass processor, used to mono the bass below a certain frequency (often about 80Hz, since at that frequency bass is 100% reverberant in most rooms that are inside a normal house) to deal with out of phase bass (which can happen when the source is a multi-channel recording). Out of phase bass can knock the stylus out of the groove. Funny thing about that, people complain about that as an LP limitation even though they can't hear it...
My LP mastering setup was old school (Westerex 3D cutter head with Westerex 1700 series electronics) and only wrapped 30dB of feedback around the cutter head and electronics. The electronics had its own feedback nested within; the result is distortion as low as you see in state of the art power amps.
Very low.
95 to 99 44/100% (being hyperbolic, but also not far off the mark) of 'the distortion of the LP' is generated during playback. You might want to check your rig for problems.
This statement is false. See above. Bass processing is only used when needed, and is never needed in a natural 2 mic recording. Out of phase bass is only an accident of multi-track.
If the producer used the same master file for the LP as he did for the digital, and then proper care in the LP mastering isn't followed, the LP could easily be disappointing. The discerning producer will often provide the LP mastering house with a master file (if a digital source) that lacks a lot of the DSP; in particular compression. The simple fact is digital is often mastered for playing in a car where LPs are not. That is one reason an LP can sound quite a lot better than the digital release despite the source file being digital.
But if the producer is uncaring and only releasing the LP for the money, it very likely to show.
If it were not, one of the two would have vanished long ago. This is BTW the same reason tubes are still around, although lately they have been threatened on multiple fronts.
Vibration (resonance) in the vinyl can 'talk back' to the stylus. This creates audible distortion. If the platter pad is able to damp the LP properly at all frequencies then the audible distortion is vastly reduced. Most platter pads don't do this so you read about all sorts of differences.
When I play an LP the experience is very similar to that of a good CD. I don't get the ticks and pops I see digital-philes complaining about. The platter pad does the things I said one should do. It was designed by someone who claimed (at the time) to be doing damping systems for aerospace. I don't know if that is true but it weighs 5 pounds and the difference in distortion is easily heard and measured.
I do find that if I'm looking for a new title I look to see if its on LP first.
I can't say if I really hear big differences between the two like I did years and decades ago. It used to be that the LP usually played better bass (as well as better highs of course). Now not so much. Again it appears that most of the problems with digital 'distortions' seem to occur in playback rather than record. I say that only because as I've improved my digital playback, older CD titles have improved with it.
Since I'm more likely to pull out the LP, I think it must still have some kind of edge in the emotional involvement department (perhaps harmonic distortion as opposed to the inharmonic distortion of digital, the latter really being a form of intermodulation). But its not like it used to be. The digital really has gotten a lot better.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |