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

[hopkins]

What is the name and model of the amplifier you own that amplifies a digital signal but is neither a “digital amplifier” nor PWM?

If it is truly a pure digital amplifier, the signal remains digital only up to the point where it leaves the amplifier at the binding posts. The loudspeaker then inevitably converts that signal into an analog waveform. A musical audio signal is vibration by nature, and analog.

So there is absolutely a conversion at the speaker end. In this context, you are actually talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

ECDesigns' powerDAC-SX: a new way of driving your speakers and headphones

I am creating this topic in the "General Audio Forum" as it deals with a product that falls in neither the "Digital Audio Forum" nor the "Power Amplifiers and Preamplifiers Forum", and is worthy of your attention. I am a (happy) customer - I have rambled about this product on my system thread...

www.whatsbestforum.com

Unfortunately their website is down for a few days, so you won’t be able to read their explanations. When you get a chance to read it, don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions (in that thread I linked above, not here). Most people have to read it over several times before getting it. They are working on a more “didactic” presentation with nice graphics.

 

[Al M.]

For many listeners, suppression of some analog artifacts sounds like "less organic".

Well, there's that, too.

In one extreme example, I have heard a -- to some probably seductive -- kind of "flow" on a string quartet reproduction that was clearly an artifact of an inferior vinyl pressing. It had little to do with how a string quartet sounds live, but rather, that "flow" was simply old-fashioned smear. I am sure by some listeners it would be interpreted as "organic".

Not that digital has no artifacts -- it does -- but not all "pretty" sounds from vinyl are evidence of greater realism.

 

[213Cobra]

Dear @hopkins and @213Cobra,

A phono output—or any analog signal—passed through an ADC–DAC chain has audible effects. The organic nature of the original analog signal and its lifelike quality diminish depending on the quality of the ADC and DAC used. One thing, however, is certain: a signal that has passed through ADC–DAC does not sound the same as the original analog signal before conversion. If you hear otherwise, you simply need better equipment to reveal the differences. The effect is very audible. There is no such thing as a truly “transparent” ADC or DAC. That claim is nonsense. I know this because I’ve tested it myself.

Analog additions in the signal path are no different in principle from their digital counterparts such as ADCs and DACs. The reality is that anything added to the signal path—digital or analog—is audible. Even digital processing applied to a signal that already exists inside a computer is audible. Hard drives and USB sticks have their own sound signatures. Copying or moving files between computers, or transferring them over the internet, also affects sound quality. The effect of digital processing or add-ons is almost always in the same direction: toward a more “plastic” presentation that wipes out organic character.

I didn't make any statement that said or implied that phono signals processed through an ADC>DAC sequence are absent audible effects for having been through a digital mill. I didn't comment on that aspect at all. I just said the resulting music sounded "analog." I didn't say it sounded exactly like same content processed with my analog-only preamps. Unfortunately, we don't have a way of knowing the sound of the "original analog signal" because we can't listen to the output of the phono cartridge without signal amplification and RIAA correction. No two analog phono preamps sound the same, and some of them aren't particularly transparent, either. So, we only listen to and evaluate the net output of phono preamps in comparison, if we're listening to componentized systems. All sorts of sonic differences are easily discernible listening through my hifi systems, and sufficiently so to hear that some analog gear is less transparent and less musically authentic than some digital gear, and vice versa.

I am aligned with the "everything affects sound quality" school of audio thinking. As a practical matter, in the digital realm we can't avoid file transfers, data transporting, storage media, etc. Yeah, OK, they all have a signature. So do the component parts of analog circuits where same-value-different-materials resistors and capacitors bring specific sonic signatures. Noting in audio signal processing is truly neutral. An ADC-based phono preamp allows digital conversion and storage of a rare analog vinyl disc. Some noise can be reduced. Other adjustments are possible. If the output is still musically tenable, the digital phono preamp will have utility and musical validity.

I think we are past the stage when everything digital rendered a "plastic presentation" outcome. That and worse was once true. Now, however, we are able to just put digital and analog components having same functions in the same bin and just evaluate them against each other. When digital loses, fine. When it wins, that should be fine too. We all throw around "transparency" as an audio characteristic. I think one can prove to oneself what it is, but transparency is an imprecise term for audio. You can't really prove to another person what it is and when it is present. I insist on transparency in audio and so do a lot of other people here, but I can't be certain we're all describing and valuing exactly the same thing.

Phil

 

[Porsche]

I love my burmester 175/opus 1 combo, very natural sounding, my 069 player is mighty close tho

 

[Al M.]

I didn't make any statement that said or implied that phono signals processed through an ADC>DAC sequence are absent audible effects for having been through a digital mill. I didn't comment on that aspect at all. I just said the resulting music sounded "analog." I didn't say it sounded exactly like same content processed with my analog-only preamps. Unfortunately, we don't have a way of knowing the sound of the "original analog signal" because we can't listen to the output of the phono cartridge without signal amplification and RIAA correction. No two analog phono preamps sound the same, and some of them aren't particularly transparent, either. So, we only listen to and evaluate the net output of phono preamps in comparison, if we're listening to componentized systems. All sorts of sonic differences are easily discernible listening through my hifi systems, and sufficiently so to hear that some analog gear is less transparent and less musically authentic than some digital gear, and vice versa.

I am aligned with the "everything affects sound quality" school of audio thinking. As a practical matter, in the digital realm we can't avoid file transfers, data transporting, storage media, etc. Yeah, OK, they all have a signature. So do the component parts of analog circuits where same-value-different-materials resistors and capacitors bring specific sonic signatures. Noting in audio signal processing is truly neutral. An ADC-based phono preamp allows digital conversion and storage of a rare analog vinyl disc. Some noise can be reduced. Other adjustments are possible. If the output is still musically tenable, the digital phono preamp will have utility and musical validity.

I think we are past the stage when everything digital rendered a "plastic presentation" outcome. That and worse was once true. Now, however, we are able to just put digital and analog components having same functions in the same bin and just evaluate them against each other. When digital loses, fine. When it wins, that should be fine too. We all throw around "transparency" as an audio characteristic. I think one can prove to oneself what it is, but transparency is an imprecise term for audio. You can't really prove to another person what it is and when it is present. I insist on transparency in audio and so do a lot of other people here, but I can't be certain we're all describing and valuing exactly the same thing.

Phil

Excellent post, thank you, Phil.

 

[microstrip]

I didn't make any statement that said or implied that phono signals processed through an ADC>DAC sequence are absent audible effects for having been through a digital mill. I didn't comment on that aspect at all. I just said the resulting music sounded "analog." I didn't say it sounded exactly like same content processed with my analog-only preamps. Unfortunately, we don't have a way of knowing the sound of the "original analog signal" because we can't listen to the output of the phono cartridge without signal amplification and RIAA correction. No two analog phono preamps sound the same, and some of them aren't particularly transparent, either. So, we only listen to and evaluate the net output of phono preamps in comparison, if we're listening to componentized systems. All sorts of sonic differences are easily discernible listening through my hifi systems, and sufficiently so to hear that some analog gear is less transparent and less musically authentic than some digital gear, and vice versa.

I am aligned with the "everything affects sound quality" school of audio thinking. As a practical matter, in the digital realm we can't avoid file transfers, data transporting, storage media, etc. Yeah, OK, they all have a signature. So do the component parts of analog circuits where same-value-different-materials resistors and capacitors bring specific sonic signatures. Noting in audio signal processing is truly neutral. An ADC-based phono preamp allows digital conversion and storage of a rare analog vinyl disc. Some noise can be reduced. Other adjustments are possible. If the output is still musically tenable, the digital phono preamp will have utility and musical validity.

I think we are past the stage when everything digital rendered a "plastic presentation" outcome. That and worse was once true. Now, however, we are able to just put digital and analog components having same functions in the same bin and just evaluate them against each other. When digital loses, fine. When it wins, that should be fine too.

All good, nice words.

We all throw around "transparency" as an audio characteristic. I think one can prove to oneself what it is, but transparency is an imprecise term for audio.

I can have a precise meaning is very specific conditions, Peter Walker once referred that he could put a frame with an ultra thin mylar diaphragm sheet between us and him speaking and we would no note when it was there or not using sound - it was acoustically transparent. But it is impossible to generalize as we do not have access to the reference sound when evaluating audio.

You can't really prove to another person what it is and when it is present. I insist on transparency in audio and so do a lot of other people here, but I can't be certain we're all describing and valuing exactly the same thing.

Phil

It is why we find some audio scholars abolished transparency, replacing it by accuracy. Can we have transparency without accuracy?

 

[Al M.]

It is why we find some audio scholars abolished transparency, replacing it by accuracy. Can we have transparency without accuracy?

Since absolute accuracy is not possible in audio reproduction, the same subjective caveats apply as to transparency: One person's "accuracy" is not another person's "accuracy".

Everyone listens for different things, according to their sonic perceptions, priorities and preferences, and takes those as benchmark for accuracy.

Of course, to some extent accuracy can be measured, but the same subjective caveats apply to the particular choice of measurements and their interpretation.

 

[Al M.]

I believe this. I prefer the vinyl pressing of the digital master of Led Zepplin II to the best digital version. There can be many reasons in the signal chain but using high latency and reclocking through a computer I still prefer the vinyl press of a digital remix. Same with modern Brian Eno pressings. Same with 24 bit files of Grand Funk or Free.

Vinyl either introduces or omits some aspects of sound that my ear finds to be more harmonious to any digital I’ve yet heard. Sorry to those offended by my musical choices.

Another issue, as several posters have pointed out, are different masterings in different playback media.

For example, it is known that the CD remaster of Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti is pretty anemic in the bass.

At least this point can be redeemed to a large extent with a good tone control on a preamplifier. My Octave HP700 thankfully has the option, which I took, and it is a lifesaver in this and a few other instances (usually I bypass the remarkably transparent tone control altogether). It makes a normally unlistenable remastering pretty enjoyable.

 

[microstrip]

I believe this. I prefer the vinyl pressing of the digital master of Led Zepplin II to the best digital version. There can be many reasons in the signal chain but using high latency and reclocking through a computer I still prefer the vinyl press of a digital remix. Same with modern Brian Eno pressings. Same with 24 bit files of Grand Funk or Free.

As long as you refer to old recordings of rock music I find natural you prefer the vinyl pressings - they were cut from fresh tapes, most modern re-mixes are now carried from old tapes, needing strong equalization to overcome hih frequency losses. As they can mix "air" sound engineers enhance detail to compensate it.

Vinyl either introduces or omits some aspects of sound that my ear finds to be more harmonious to any digital I’ve yet heard. Sorry to those offended by my musical choices.

No one can be offended with musical choices, but we should be sure we are not comparing apples with oranges when referring to compares.

BTW, one of the big shames of digital sound were some rock CDs that were cut from tapes created for specific lacquer cutting, with the up to 20 dB bass cut and up to 20 dB treble increase at frequency extremes.

 

[jeff1225]

IMO it’s 100% source material. When we listened to Dr Steve’s system, the new direct to digital recordings sounded amazing on his digital, originally on analog recordings not so much.

But that’s why we have to source the best pressing on vinyl as well.

 

[Al M.]

BTW, one of the big shames of digital sound were some rock CDs that were cut from tapes created for specific lacquer cutting, with the up to 20 dB bass cut and up to 20 dB treble increase at frequency extremes.

Yes, it was tragic. I couldn't believe recording engineers would have made that mistake, being utterly careless, until I heard it myself.

I have two CD masterings of the Black Sabbath debut album.

One of them us superb. Well defined sound, full-bodied, weighty, lively and dynamic, with remarkable visceral impact. A +.

The other, earlier one is clearly made from an RIAA adjusted tape for vinyl cutting. Completely anemic bass, extremely emphasized treble. Ozzy's voice is almost unrecognizable because of the treble tilt, and the white hot, thinned out cymbals make you laugh or give you the creeps, depending on mood.

There is simply no comparison between the two masterings.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It is why we find some audio scholars abolished transparency, replacing it by accuracy. Can we have transparency without accuracy?

i think we have to put completeness at the top of the list, then transparency, then accurate. transparency and accurate only slightly different. many might equate those two. all three are relative terms. more or less of each. we can think something is transparent and accurate, yet hear another that is more complete and slightly less transparent and accurate but prefer the most complete.....as it most rings real....the organic physicality and presence of complete trumps the rest. coloration/distortion is a matter of perspective. the trick is complete without much of it......a personal perspective.

this can be digital on digital too, not just digital on analog.

just how i view it generally.

 

[Rexp]

CD players seem to making a comeback, personally I've never heard one that I find addictive to listen to, are the newer models an improvement?

 

[Al M.]

CD players seem to making a comeback, personally I've never heard one that I find addictive to listen to, are the newer models an improvement?

CD player or CD transport/DAC?

 

[microstrip]

CD players seem to making a comeback, personally I've never heard one that I find addictive to listen to, are the newer models an improvement?

You should have listened to the now vintage Forsell combo or the Metronome Kalista with its tubed DAC - colored, surely, but really addictive. Surely some people found them excessively "organic" !

 

[Mike Lavigne]

CD players seem to making a comeback, personally I've never heard one that I find addictive to listen to, are the newer models an improvement?

two years ago i added a CD transport after 8 years without one. it's very good, but not quite as good as my streaming on the Wadax which should surprise no one.

the performance was on the edgy side for this transport until i connected it to my Esoteric GX1 clock with a Shunyata Sigma v2 clock 50 cable. was a big deal in terms of it fitting into my musical expectations for my system. so it was not just plug and play to earn it way.

back to the CD's; i can get on a roll going back to my CD collection and get sucked into it for sure. it's a thing unto itself and sounds super into the Wadax dac. not necessary for it to equal or surpass streaming to be lots of fun. many of my CD's are personal touchstones.

 

[M2M]

Forty-two-to-roughly-twenty years ago, vinyl was relatively organic, natural and relaxing to listen to, and digital was relatively hard, if not harsh, unsubtle and fatiguing, but bass was good.

If you refer to CDs in general, I disagree fundamentally and surely. A good example is Philips Dvorak Serenades op 22&44 for Marriner. Through Krell KPS 20IL, it’s “smooth tube jazz”, incredibly composed, musical instruments very realistic, far from any hardness, very addictive from begging to the end. Listen to the same edition on Vinyl with BM LP-S, and it's completely different, it can also be boring, it only beats the CD in terms of size or microscopic.

On the other hand, Solti Wagner Favorites 2 CD Decca, is unlistenable! Sounds exactly like the PS5, harsh and uncontrollable. But all Decca analog recordings have similar features, and all Philips sound a like and exceptionally different than the rest. Worth mentioning, the CD drive in KPS 20IL is Philips CDM 9.

I agree with you about hardness, even Telarc has some hardness too. But many other CDs, neither Telarc nor Philips, sound free from hardness and share Philip's CD similarities.