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

[Carlos269]

What is apparent is that these videos are useless and not even worth considering. He forgot the price of Fremers amps in his list, total is probably closer to a million.

The sound recordings were taken from the phonostage so no amps or speakers were involved.

 

[Lagonda]

I didn't say anything remotely to that affect as pertains to myself. But your comment is very to the point for many people. Especially the ones that enjoy digital. I have heard records at Mikes that have a lot of surface noise. They still have a wonderful sound and play at a high level. I'm ok with it. Mike seems to be. But many would call the album a waste. I find it true that most records have some surface noise and it gets worse over time unless your fanatical like my RIP friend Joe Pitman who washed every record after every play before putting it back in the sleeve.

I do have some records that are damaged by ground in dirt and most likely oils from hands that has reacted with the viny and deatroyed the outside songs. One being a 1967 Charlie Brown Christmas that cost me $600. Its my worst version of the formats I have. The digital on hard drive from a CD are just fine. My 15ips tape is the best.

I have records i rescued from a Miami reggae DJ left at my recording studio, many pretty scratchy, i still enjoy them immensely, and imagine all the joints he smoke as he was playing music and getting laid !

 

[Al M.]

The audio industry has had over 40 years to get digital right,

Fortunately they succeeded.

perhaps instead they should be developing new ways to store and playback analog.

The old ways seem to work just fine for analog aficionados, so why bother?

Everyone can be happy in their own way. No need for anyone to try convince others that they should be happy his or her way. It's a futile and unnecessary undertaking.

 

[Rexp]

I have records i rescued from a Miami reggae DJ left at my recording studio, many pretty scratchy, i still enjoy them immensely, and imagine all the joints he smoke as he was playing music and getting laid !

You're imagining him getting laid? I can see why a system video wouldn't be your thing...

 

[rDin]

Is time for you to experience HQPLAYER...

What is it that you feel HQPLAYER does that elevates it above other digital solutions, and from that can you extrapolate as to what is therefore lacking in other digital solutions? This is interesting as it might shed some light on the OP's question.

 

[Rensselaer]

That's because it is a subjective process, unique to each individual and impossible to quantify or determine with measurements. With all due respect, why is this basic fact so difficult for you to apparently understand and accept?

It was Al M who asserted that many people confuse subjective process with hard facts.

I actually pointed out how the only way of determining the degree of “realness” between two systems is by a subjective process because there are no machines that can measure such.

Consider that scientific tools like microscopes and such are actually magnifying what we perceive subjectively through our senses. Our subjective perceptions, whether or not some equipment exists that will measure beyond such, do result in “hard facts”.

So contrary to what you are asserting, I was pointing out to Al M that subjective perceptions are also fact. Why is plain English so difficult for you to apparently understand and accept? I would venture to say bias is clouding your judgement. Suggest you go back and re-read the entry’s.

Actually, go back and read other entry’s by Al M and, if you keep an open mind, you might perceive a recurring theme of ridicule towards anyone who says that digital, to them, sounds etched or edgy, causes them listener fatigue, seems harsh or just that they prefer the sound of AAA. He is biased (see entry #543 where he asserts that the audio industry has succeeded in getting digital “right”. He is already convinced there is nothing more to do, that digital is perfect). I guess I should go back and read your previous entry’s to see if you too are totally biased.

 

[tima]

The trick to assessing realism is to be familiar with the real. Listen to live acoustic music and you will know what sounds real. While there are lots of audiophile attributes it boils down to energy and information.

 

[Rensselaer]

The trick to assessing realism is to be familiar with the real. Listen to live acoustic music and you will know what sounds real. While there are lots of audiophile attributes it boils down to energy and information.

Sure, knowing what actual instruments sound like playing live in a given space, preferably not amplified by electronic means, does establish what "real" sounds like.

Assuming all on this thread have listened to live music so know what "real" sounds like, why is it that some on this thread find excessive processing (read digital) more "real" while others find such less "real"?

If we take people at their word and dismiss any possibility of bias, and because this keeps coming up with near equal numbers in each camp, then we must assume that hearing, or the processing of sound in our brains, must be genetically wired differently.

Natural selection and all that. With the way that the recording industry is going those who prefer a digital source may be better suited to the present/future than those of us preferring analogue. I suspect those of us in the latter camp will eventually go the way of the Dodo?

 

[hopkins]

The trick to assessing realism is to be familiar with the real. Listen to live acoustic music and you will know what sounds real. While there are lots of audiophile attributes it boils down to energy and information.

Can vocals work to evaluate realism? That is an acoustic "instrument" that everyone is familiar with and that is present in practically every music "genre".

 

[morricab]

The trick to assessing realism is to be familiar with the real. Listen to live acoustic music and you will know what sounds real. While there are lots of audiophile attributes it boils down to energy and information.

This has been my message since day one of joining this forum. The addition to this would be to recognize recordings that are more realistic to be used in the evaluation of a systems realism.

 

[morricab]

Sure, knowing what actual instruments sound like playing live in a given space, preferably not amplified by electronic means, does establish what "real" sounds like.

Assuming all on this thread have listened to live music so know what "real" sounds like, why is it that some on this thread find excessive processing (read digital) more "real" while others find such less "real"?

If we take people at their word and dismiss any possibility of bias, and because this keeps coming up with near equal numbers in each camp, then we must assume that hearing, or the processing of sound in our brains, must be genetically wired differently.

Natural selection and all that. With the way that the recording industry is going those who prefer a digital source may be better suited to the present/future than those of us preferring analogue. I suspect those of us in the latter camp will eventually go the way of the Dodo?

Some people only like their music distorted (all genres of rock apply) and/ or synthetic (all electronic music). I like both but not as a tool to evaluate system realism.

 

[Al M.]

It was Al M who asserted that many people confuse subjective process with hard facts.

I actually pointed out how the only way of determining the degree of “realness” between two systems is by a subjective process because there are no machines that can measure such.

Agreed.

Consider that scientific tools like microscopes and such are actually magnifying what we perceive subjectively through our senses. Our subjective perceptions, whether or not some equipment exists that will measure beyond such, do result in “hard facts”.

No, they don't. They are still subjective perceptions. (Instead of "hard" facts I probably should have said objective facts.)

And you confuse the scientific process with subjective audio evaluation. Yet explaining the scientific process goes way beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll let it be.

So contrary to what you are asserting, I was pointing out to Al M that subjective perceptions are also fact.

They are fact for individual persons. These perceptions may or may not be shared by other persons. They are not hard, objective facts. That the sun rises every day is an objective fact.

Actually, go back and read other entry’s by Al M and, if you keep an open mind, you might perceive a recurring theme of ridicule towards anyone who says that digital, to them, sounds etched or edgy, causes them listener fatigue, seems harsh or just that they prefer the sound of AAA.

As usual, you get things wrong. I have never said that digital cannot sound etched, edgy or harsh. Bad and mediocre digital does. If you would have followed my posts over the years, you would have realized that I have been very critical of digital problems and artifacts. I have many times pointed out that it took far too long for digital to get rhythm & timing (the 'foot tapping factor') right, which now it can. I have mentioned that on this thread as well. have also consistently pointed out the synthetic, "plasticky" sound of suboptimal computer audio/streaming which, however, can be remedied when computer audio is done right. In a time before you joined WBF I have also repeatedly pointed to things that in my view digital back then could not do, such as properly reproducing the sound of tenor saxophone, for example. In the meantime digital has progressed to a point where to my ears those things are not a problem anymore.

As for listening fatigue, that is definitely real for some. In post #124 I have also pointed to posts on WBF that discuss digital causing headaches or migraine, and which may be useful resources for those who are affected:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/why-oh-why-does-vinyl-continue-to-blow-away-digital.38800/page-7#post-970629

I have also not ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA. If you think I did, you are free to point us to a post where you think this was the case.

He is biased (see entry #543 where he asserts that the audio industry has succeeded in getting digital “right”. He is already convinced there is nothing more to do, that digital is perfect).

Getting something right is not the same as perfection. There is no perfection in high-end audio. For me personally, as well as many others, digital has gotten to a point where it can provide a highly engaging and enjoyable listening experience, which in terms of believability can compete with high-quality vinyl playback.

Others like you may disagree. Everyone has has their own subjective perceptions and biases, and that's fine.

 

[morricab]

Can vocals work to evaluate realism? That is an acoustic "instrument" that everyone is familiar with and that is present in practically every music "genre".

Depends on how processed that voice is by the studio. A live un manipulated voice is a good tool…live piano recording is better….and something a lot of belt drive TTs fail due to speed instability…piano note decay reveals quite well this failing.

 

[hopkins]

Depends on how processed that voice is by the studio. A live un manipulated voice is a good tool…live piano recording is better….and something a lot of belt drive TTs fail due to speed instability…piano note decay reveals quite well this failing.

I often wonder whether experiencing live sound is really that useful. Each musician/instrument is unique, and so is each recording and room acoustics. At some point, you can't avoid listening to a track on a variety of systems to try and figure out what's going on. "Neutral" headphones (if such a thing exists) are good to evaluate tonality and resolution. That's just me...

 

[hopkins]

We are getting off topic, but it's interesting, I think, to listen to recordings with two players on the same instrument. I think many of you here are familiar with this track:

I doubt anyone here has heard Coleman Hawkins and Ben Webster live. I have not had that chance! You can see that they have very different sounds (both playing tenor saxophones, but different models, different reeds, with different techniques). So how do you know that your system is getting the sound right? How do you know how much resolution a given recording offers? How far is the recording itself from their actual sound?

It's not so easy... At least you know that they should sound very different. If you've heard a lot of recordings with either of them, you have an idea of their "sound", but they do change from one recording to another, over time.

If however you are just concerned with getting a "live" sound, with presence, dynamics, etc...then I think you can assess that on any music (even amplified/electronic music).

 

[Al M.]

Actually, go back and read other entry’s by Al M and, if you keep an open mind, you might perceive a recurring theme of ridicule towards anyone who says that digital, to them, sounds etched or edgy, causes them listener fatigue, seems harsh or just that they prefer the sound of AAA.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have not ridiculed anyone who prefers the sound of AAA.

Yet not only that, I have praised a thread about AAA vinyl as one of the most enjoyable ones that I have ever read on WBF. See my post #408 there:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-new-audiophile-vinyl-series-the-original-source-from-deutsche-grammophon-aaa.36400/page-21#post-900242

 

[Carlos269]

What is it that you feel HQPLAYER does that elevates it above other digital solutions, and from that can you extrapolate as to what is therefore lacking in other digital solutions? This is interesting as it might shed some light on the OP's question.

HQPLAYER can do many things so it is not a push button that give you one result. The permutations and features are practically limitless. With my configuration, HQPLAYER gives my recordings increased low-level & inner details, increased air and ambience information, and increased presence in a way that the recordings become more real with increased dimensionality and depth, perhaps texture is the better word here. HQPLAYER gives the user the ability to better align the source material with one’s preference, audio system’s sound signature, and room acoustics. You can also perform convolution and equalization through pipeline processing if you wish. I use it in a very straight forward manner but other use it ‘s convolution feature for real-time digital room correction. AudiophileStyle probably has the most comprehensive thread on HQPLAYER but better than reading it, it is best to use the trial version and hear for yourself what it can do for you.

 

[morricab]

I often wonder whether experiencing live sound is really that useful. Each musician/instrument is unique, and so is each recording and room acoustics. At some point, you can't avoid listening to a track on a variety of systems to try and figure out what's going on. "Neutral" headphones (if such a thing exists) are good to evaluate tonality and resolution. That's just me...

You rarely, if ever , mistake a live performance for a recording or vice versa. There is a mental template that your brain has stored that recognises the difference…I would like to think the goal is mimic sufficiently that you are at least fooled to some degree or time. Reduction of AUDIBLE distortion is at least a part of that goal…not only frequency and harmonic distortion but also timing and dynamic distortion (for example accuracy in reproduction of natural dynamic shifts in music…a lot of this limitation is also on the recording side).

 

[morricab]

We are getting off topic, but it's interesting, I think, to listen to recordings with two players on the same instrument. I think many of you here are familiar with this track:

I doubt anyone here has heard Coleman Hawkins and Ben Webster live. I have not had that chance! You can see that they have very different sounds (both playing tenor saxophones, but different models, different reeds, with different techniques). So how do you know that your system is getting the sound right? How do you know how much resolution a given recording offers? How far is the recording itself from their actual sound?

It's not so easy... At least you know that they should sound very different. If you've heard a lot of recordings with either of them, you have an idea of their "sound", but they do change from one recording to another, over time.

If however you are just concerned with getting a "live" sound, with presence, dynamics, etc...then I think you can assess that on any music (even amplified/electronic music).

No, because you can go hear live, very talented players today live and understand what might be missing from either a recording or a system…you can triangulate which is the culprit by playing the same recording on many systems. You have no live template with electronic music and at least greatly reduced comparability with amplified instruments.

 

[rDin]

With my configuration, HQPLAYER gives my recordings increased low-level & inner details, increased air and ambience information, and increased presence in a way that the recordings become more real with increased dimensionality and depth, perhaps texture is the better word here.

Thank you - I hear similar with Chord MScaler. So to pursue this a little further - WHY is this? What critical thing is HQPLAYER doing, resulting in the improvements you hear, that other digital solution's aren't? Why does doing that/those things result in such improvements? And doesn't this imply that other digital solutions are therefore deficient? Again, these insights could well add some clarity to the the OP's question...