Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm sure there are. It seemed you were fairly confident in saying "no" to the idea that state of the art digital can be had for around the price of a Topping DAC. The issues was how anyone can justify one claim over another. How does The State Of The Art move forward in any way anyone can agree upon? I would think that'd be an interesting question. If that doesn't strike you as any problem...well...ok

well. in the last few years i've twice, in 2017 and 2022, made changes in my digital chasing state of the art. here and here. prior to those there were a few others. back to the Linn CD-12 in 1999. when i've heard better digital i've pursued it. and i've been an open book about my process over the years.

neither of my most recent digital choices are cheap. both were preceded by other very fine dacs in my system. and i've always paid attention to, and listened to, as many of the better dacs as i can along the way.

did anyone agree? do they ever agree? you will have to read it and find out.

i can say i enjoyed the process each time and am still in the second process. and each day i do feel i have state of the art digital. i have done the work, committed the assets and time, and have the analog references that validates my feelings. but at the end of the day, it's still just one guys opinion. YMMV.

you will see that when i say my digital can't quite keep up with my analog, it's not that i've short changed my digital, more that exactly the opposite. i have gone to the tip top, yet my analog is still better. no excuses for digital in my system. none.

until this last dac and server i bought, i had never acquired the most costly dac/digital player on the market, so high price is not the biggest factor in digital performance, but sometimes it does work out that way. i'm sure your Topping dac plays well above it's price point. lots of very nice modestly priced dacs out there.

I agree that one can go overboard in questioning the validity of listening impressions. As I've said, I argue for the validity of listening impressions all the time.

However, if merely voicing skepticism of a particular manufacturer or audiophile's claim...and daring to give reasons based on technical grounds or any appeal to science...if that's enough to be "tuned out" then that suggests a close-minded dogmatism.

I've been reading and enjoying this forum for many years. I hope you don't mind if I go a bit further in to this general subject of how conversations are carried out on audio forums....

i've said enough about this forum, any forum, and listening impressions, in response to you. tried to be respectful. if others want to take over that part they are welcome to. or not. it is what it is. i respect you want to take that discussion further.

best regards,

Mike

 

[COF]

Thanks for the conversation Mike! I can see your point of view.

BTW I use a Benchmark DAC2L...XLR'd in to my Benchmark LA4 preamp. I don't buy no stinkin' cheapo Topping DACs!

As for your analog being "better" I can totally relate. When I talk about how fantastic my records sound in my set-up, many in the "accuracy" camp ("not that there's anything wrong with that") will say "well, it doesn't really sound better..what you mean is you prefer the sound...which is fine, but it's not high fidelity."

I feel this has mixed up "good sound" with "fidelity/accuracy" because they are not the same thing (which is very, very obvious if one stops and thinks about it even for a minute). When I say I feel my records often sound "better" I don't *just* mean "I prefer the sound."
I think they sound "better" in certain aspects of sound quality and sometimes realism. As John Devore has described it, vinyl often seems to paint a more solid sonic picture, which is what it does in my system. And, in my system it does give up some things to digital, but it still does some things to my mind "better" and not just "I prefer."

Over and out.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . many in the "accuracy" camp ("not that there's anything wrong with that") will say "well, it doesn't really sound better..what you mean is you prefer the sound...which is fine, but it's not high fidelity."

I feel this has mixed up "good sound" with "fidelity/accuracy" because they are not the same thing (which is very, very obvious if one stops and thinks about it even for a minute).

Yes, such a response mixes that up. But it also arrogantly fails to understand there are several equally valid objectives of high-end audio, of which "accuracy" (which in my parlance is "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played") is but one.

 

[COF]

Yes, such a response mixes that up. But it also arrogantly fails to understand there are several equally valid objectives of high-end audio, of which "accuracy" (which in my parlance is "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played") is but one.

It's amazing how much bad vibes on the internet are caused by people who simply have a problem understanding why other people like other things. Everything is rated through the lens of their own goals.

 

[tima]

Yes, such a response mixes that up. But it also arrogantly fails to understand there are several equally valid objectives of high-end audio, of which "accuracy" (which in my parlance is "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played") is but one.

For your objective "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played", how can you tell if it is achieved or not?

 

[Ron Resnick]

For your objective "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played", how can you tell if it is achieved or not?

I don't think we can. I conceive of this one of the four objectives as aspirational and as theoretical. The intent of this objective is to capture a bit more intelligibly the concept of "accuracy."

I'm happy to continue an objectives discussion on a more relevant thread.

 

[tima]

You got inside the edit timer.

I don't think we can. I conceive of this one of the four objectives as aspirational and as theoretical. The intent of this objective is to capture a bit more intelligibly the concept of "accuracy."

I'm happy to continue an objectives discussion on a more relevant thread.

That thread happened:

"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

Literally, high fidelity, as in getting the most information out of the recording and presenting it in the way the recording artists intended. How do we know exactly what is really "the way the recording artists intended" considering the industry has no standards and the artists seldom have...

www.whatsbestforum.com