Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?

[Ron Resnick]

All the crackling and cracking of the dust particles just annoys me.

I consider this to be a perfectly valid criticism of vinyl playback. It is one of the reasons I prefer tape over vinyl.

 

[Al M.]

Makes perfect sense. Why others would suggest otherwise is beyond my pay grade. All things being equal, how can anyone claim that they know how something sounds tò someone else and what they should prefer?

Some people think their subjective preferences are just a reflection of hard facts, and thus should be universally shared by everyone, whereas the world is a bit more complicated than that.

Everyone can justify their subjective preferences by hard facts of their choosing. That doesn’t make the facts wrong -- even though many can't even get the facts right -- but their use to bolster subjective preferences is commonly highly selective and often depends on interpreting their practical meaning and importance in a manner that is debatable.

Finally, many simply mistake their subjective preferences for hard facts, for lack of analytical thinking or for psychological reasons.

 

[Carlos269]

Is this first statement....

"Many times, the mixes and mastering are different from the digital version. So it's really comparing apples to oranges."

This is true. The commercial recording “analog” mastering for the the cutting house is different than the one for “digital” release; therefore not apples to apples comparisons.

"I much prefer to listen to vinyl at home because I love the colorations from the cutting process. It simply sounds more engaging to me - even if I know that the digital is more true to source."

True to what source?

His own source material which he mastered himself.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Thanks for the correction, Mark. Regardless of ownership, Warner Classics is re-issuing many great recordings on LP.

Releases | Warner Classics

The home of classical music: Warner Classics and Erato present artists from Maria Callas to Joyce DiDonato, Mstislav Rostropovich to Gautier Capuçon

www.warnerclassics.com

Classical recordings - Search: WArner Classics vinyl (page 1 of 14) | Presto Music

www.prestomusic.com

Here is a great example. A case can be made that this is the greatest (or one of the very great) Mahler 2nds.
This is an essential recording for any collection: the greatest interpretation of Mahler's Second ever placed before the public, made under ideal studio conditions and now in the best sound possible.
- Tony Duggan Review

View attachment 131676

The original record is hard to find and expensive in M/NM. I am happy for the reissue from Warner.

I don't know if this is true but I read it on the internet :

"As of 2013, EMI UK's catalogue is owned by Warner Music Group after the acquisition of the Parlophone Label Group's assets." Parlophone had been owned by EMI.

With Mahler’s second there’s plenty of good to great performances but Otto Klemperer with the Philharmonia sits right up at the peak for me… along with Bruno Walter and NY Phil and Vladimir Jurowski with the London Phil… it’d be one of my one of my all time favourite Klemperer recordings as well. It’s a benchmark fabulous performance of the M2.

 

[Carlos269]

My issue here is that this view pre-judges a critically important predicate step. That predicate step is "What is my high-end audio objective?"

Possible objectives:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

If one selects, in advance, the objective of "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," then "which is more accurate?" is a logical question to ask.

But if one selects, in advance, the objective of "create a sound that seems live" then assessing which is more "accurate" becomes spurious.


* Whom I adore, by the way.

It is very true that if you seek accuracy to the source material then this can be an example of “blind-faith” because how do you validate any assessment?

If your goal is for recordings to sound like what you “expect them to sound based on your experience with listening to live un-amplified music” then you may be asking something of your system that it cannot deliver; if what you are seeking to hear is not in the source material. In other words, you have unrealistic expectations if you expect something that cannot be. Only ensuring that the source material has what you are looking to hear will realistically ensure that the reproduction systems that you are listing to have a chance of delivering what you are expecting……otherwise you are unrealistically and unfairly expecting to hear something that can never be.

 

[the sound of Tao]

This is a really interesting subject for me , even more so than OP subject (what was it, “Grammer in Audio”?).

I tend to seek a listening state where music and sound awareness merge. Sound is the very stuff music is made of— how can the two really be separated? I tend to notice the physiological effects when I can reach into that state, like eyelids going half mast or involuntarily closing.

I figure if we had a better understanding of perception and a model of the varied perceptual modes that people employ we’d also have a greater understanding of how experience and expectation work to shape preferences… but then we’d have a shipload less to argue about.

 

[Rexp]

The audio industry has had over 40 years to get digital right, perhaps instead they should be developing new ways to store and playback analog.

 

[Carlos269]

The audio industry has had over 40 years to get digital right, perhaps instead they should be developing new ways to store and playback analog.

Listen, digital sounds great. Perhaps you need to listen to digital through better equipment. Last time we discussed this you were listing through your laptop. Has this changed?

 

[Rexp]

Listen, digital sounds great. Perhaps you need to listen to digital through better equipment. Last time we discussed this you were listing through your laptop. Has this changed?

If you say so, lol.

 

[Carlos269]

If you say so, lol.

What are you listening to your analog versus digital compares on?

Can you install HQPLAYER and listen through HQPLAYER Client to the digital recordings and report on your findings?

 

[Rexp]

What are you listening to tour analog versus digital compares on?

Can you install HQPLAYER and listen through HQPLAYER Client to the digital recordings and report on your findings?

I've been demoing digital up to the $15K price point and had no inclination to buy.
I do plan to try DSD at some point, will keep you posted. Pehaps in the meantime someone will come up with a new AAA system. Do you know of any developments on that front? Was reading about analog-valued memory just now, no idea whether it could be relevant to AAA audio.

 

[Carlos269]

I've been demoing digital up to the $15K price point and had no inclination to buy.

I’m not surprised, you can get great sound quality for less than that nowadays. If you stream, a Node X into a custom SET amplifier to full range open baffle speakers will get you great sound for about half that amount.

I do plan to try DSD at some point, will keep you posted.

I hope that you do and HQPLAYER is the way to go.

Pehaps in the meantime someone will come up with a new AAA system. Do you know of any developments on that front? Was reading about analog-valued memory just now, no idea whether it could be relevant to AAA audio.

No I have not heard of anything being developed on that front. The biggest advantage to DDD is that it not lossy at every step like AAA and it does not degrade with time, thus it is why digital is used for archiving. Analog such as magnetic tape, the old studio standard, does not hold well with time.

 

[tima]

All the crackling and cracking of the dust particles just annoys me. I get more out of digital music played on high-quality systems. Ultimately everything is a matter of taste. If you like listening to vinyl, please do. But anyone who tries to sell me digital stuff with vinyl sound simulation should stay away. I just like what I like.

No offense intended but that's a 20th Century criticism. Today there are multiple means for cleaning vinyl records that allow them to remain near-new or pristine. It's a viable medium.

Record Cleaning and Related Topics

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[exupgh12]

The human ear/brain interface is several orders of magnitude more sensitive to digital jitter than it is to roughly its equivalent, analog wow and flutter. A major problem is that while in wow and flutter all frequencies are affected equally, in jitter the timing error affects different frequencies differently -- and in an inconsistent manner, depending on the music signal from moment to moment.

Hi,

Do you have or reference support the claim that human ears are more sensitive to digital jitter then to analog wow and flutter?

Thank you.

 

[Al M.]

Hi,

Do you have or reference support the claim that human ears are more sensitive to digital jitter then to analog wow and flutter?

Thank you.

For example, here:

The Unique Evils of Digital Audio and How to Defeat Them

Introduction We are all too familiar with the criticisms of digital audio. We have heard digital audio described as harsh, brittle, lifeless, tense, cold, and non‐musical. Perhaps each of us can add our own adjectives to this list. We are surrounded by poor‐quality digital systems. Our...

benchmarkmedia.com

Quote:
Jitter is not a fundamental limitation of digital systems, it is simply a defect. The distortion caused by Jitter can be reduced to inaudible levels if the timing of A/D and D/A sampling is accurate enough. The timing accuracy required to guarantee inaudibility is rather surprising. Jitter must be reduced to about +/‐ 20 psec (+/‐ 20 trillionths of a second) to absolutely guarantee that it will never exceed the threshold of hearing at reasonably loud listening levels. Fortunately, a significant portion of the jitter-induced distortion is often masked by the music. Because of this masking, higher levels of jitter may be acceptable. There is still considerable debate about the thresholds for jitter audibility.
(End quote.)

***

Obviously, these numbers are magnitudes more critical than the sensitivity of the human ear for analog wow and flutter. For a range of audibilty, see for example here:

Minimum wow and flutter percentage that is audible?

Anyone know the generally accepted wow and flutter percentage threshold specification at which wow and flutter becomes noticeable?

www.tapeheads.net

 

[exupgh12]

For example, here:

The Unique Evils of Digital Audio and How to Defeat Them

Introduction We are all too familiar with the criticisms of digital audio. We have heard digital audio described as harsh, brittle, lifeless, tense, cold, and non‐musical. Perhaps each of us can add our own adjectives to this list. We are surrounded by poor‐quality digital systems. Our...

benchmarkmedia.com

Quote:
Jitter is not a fundamental limitation of digital systems, it is simply a defect. The distortion caused by Jitter can be reduced to inaudible levels if the timing of A/D and D/A sampling is accurate enough. The timing accuracy required to guarantee inaudibility is rather surprising. Jitter must be reduced to about +/‐ 20 psec (+/‐ 20 trillionths of a second) to absolutely guarantee that it will never exceed the threshold of hearing at reasonably loud listening levels. Fortunately, a significant portion of the jitter-induced distortion is often masked by the music. Because of this masking, higher levels of jitter may be acceptable. There is still considerable debate about the thresholds for jitter audibility.
(End quote.)

***

Obviously, these numbers are magnitudes more critical than the sensitivity of the human ear for analog wow and flutter. For a range of audibilty, see for example here:

Minimum wow and flutter percentage that is audible?

Anyone know the generally accepted wow and flutter percentage threshold specification at which wow and flutter becomes noticeable?

www.tapeheads.net

Thank you so much, appreciate.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you so much, appreciate.

You're welcome.

 

[bonzo75]

My issue here is that this view pre-judges a critically important predicate step. That predicate step is "What is my high-end audio objective?"

Possible objectives:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

If one selects, in advance, the objective of "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," then "which is more accurate?" is a logical question to ask.

But if one selects, in advance, the objective of "create a sound that seems live" then assessing which is more "accurate" becomes spurious.


* Whom I adore, by the way.

You can create a sound that seems live by reproducing what’s on a good recording. That will please the audiophile who is seeking a live sound.

 

[bonzo75]

No offense intended but that's a 20th Century criticism. Today there are multiple means for cleaning vinyl records that allow them to remain near-new or pristine. It's a viable medium.

Record Cleaning and Related Topics

www.whatsbestforum.com

That is ok if Wackerd is a digital guy with low exposure to analog. It is a commonly misunderstood NLF thing. However it is weird when an analog guy says the same thing

 

[tima]

That is ok if Wackerd is a digital guy with low exposure to analog. It is a commonly misunderstood NLF thing. However it is weird when an analog guy says the same thing

Yeah, an odd dis that sorta surprised me -- sorta. We don't hear much on that front since the initial whoop-de-do. Maybe its a 10 record thing.