Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?
- Thread starter godofwealth
- Start date
- Status
nothing so serious. mid summer. it's hot outside, shorter fuses. need to chill. listen to music. take a hike. i'm going to go watch today's leg of the Tour de France.
I thought Morricab and Argonaut where the same person with 2 different profiles, kind of Jekyll and Hyde until they got in an argument one day. That is too schizophrenic even for Aries Cerat dealers !
I am morricab, actually. That’s why you see the sets horn preference, for the rest, I post as me when I want to be sensible or funnyI thought Morricab and Argonaut where the same person with 2 different profiles, kind of Jekyll and Hyde until they got in an argument one day. That is too schizophrenic even for Aries Cerat dealers !
I get your point Tima. I agree there are a decent amount of people that apply new tech related to streaming. I myself have a decent switch that has worked well. But I am considering getting a new Uptone switch as well as a clock to go with it. But there are far more people that bought something like a Hifi Rose, set it on a shelf and are completely satisfied with how it plays.
If you want to talk about those that are seeking the highest performance from their digital equipment, then you have to consider the feats they have gone through with their analog. Its just as exhaustive. I think for some, they got their digital so close to analog, they had to jump back on the wagon to up the vinyl side again. The people with the highest quality vinyl that can claim vinyl is king have cartridges that cost more than any clock. Same for multiple arms as well as multiple tables and multiple phono stages. There are expensive active isolation stand. Some going so far as to support the structure of the house underneath the equipment racks so walking does not skip the record. They get hot rodded speed controls as well as specialized cables in their tone arms. Even exterior cables to field coil driven cartridge. There is a lot of tube rolling in phono pre. The whole getting the most from vinyl is very ripe with accessories to tune and extract the highest potential. Grounding and filters. And then there is the need to pay people like JR to set the table up properly. If someone is able to set a table up properly, they have thousands of hours of patient practice learning how to do it on their own. No one involved in digital goes through that sort of learning curve or skill development. Its not required. You might buy parts and place them on a shelf and swap cables around or add isolation and vibration control. But there is no need for microscopes or tedious tweaking to dial a device in.
If you want to talk about those that are seeking the highest performance from their digital equipment, then you have to consider the feats they have gone through with their analog. Its just as exhaustive. I think for some, they got their digital so close to analog, they had to jump back on the wagon to up the vinyl side again. The people with the highest quality vinyl that can claim vinyl is king have cartridges that cost more than any clock. Same for multiple arms as well as multiple tables and multiple phono stages. There are expensive active isolation stand. Some going so far as to support the structure of the house underneath the equipment racks so walking does not skip the record. They get hot rodded speed controls as well as specialized cables in their tone arms. Even exterior cables to field coil driven cartridge. There is a lot of tube rolling in phono pre. The whole getting the most from vinyl is very ripe with accessories to tune and extract the highest potential. Grounding and filters. And then there is the need to pay people like JR to set the table up properly. If someone is able to set a table up properly, they have thousands of hours of patient practice learning how to do it on their own. No one involved in digital goes through that sort of learning curve or skill development. Its not required. You might buy parts and place them on a shelf and swap cables around or add isolation and vibration control. But there is no need for microscopes or tedious tweaking to dial a device in.
The rate of new and change seems higher with digital audio. Why do you have a problem with that?
TLDR: “Basically it is the 40 years of BS and salesmanship.”
Longer version:
Well 40 years it was perfect, then 25 years ago it was perfect.
Every year it is getting more perfect.
And from the beginning it was hailed as easier and cheaper than a vinyl deck.
But, my god, the costs of some of the gear are just absurd.
It is almost like a never ending scam…
Either one “chases the perfection”, or they just get some digital setup that is adequate and enjoyable.
That is not entirely correct. The first CD players cost quite a bit of money in today's dollars and considerably more than cheap turntables at the time.
True, but you can also get outrageously expensive turntables, tone arms, cartridges, phonostages etc. Not to mention the final price when you add it all up.
On the other hand, nowadays you can also get digital that is very cheap and sounds halfway decent. And if you listen to some music on your laptop over headphones you are talking about digital that is a few dollars, much cheaper than the cheapest turntable.
The advances with digital differs from that of analog sources. Analog has been around for long time. Digital? Not so much, so they are discovering and advancing just like they did with analog back in the day.
For the record? I enjoy both for what they have to offer. I have no sword in this useless (IMO only ) debate.
Tom
Well me too, but I like to pretend that I care.
Both my meagre digital and the vinyl sound about the same.
People that throw out the spec superiority may not have heard a really nice TT.
But I have also heard some really absolute shockers of TTs.
That’s fine but the second part of your sentence is just how the journey starts. The digital guy who set out to be adequate and enjoyable soon starts “upgrading” to make his digital sound as good/better than analog and in the process spends so much that he could have had a decent analog set up with records that would have sounded better than any upgrade he can now do. Then he comes and argues on the forum demanding respect for his journey
Maybe that guy could also have changed his amp and speakers and been happy with a basic digital source. It’s been known to happen.
If we don't like others opinions so we should not try to insult and drive them off the forum.
Micro and other digital lovers all are members of WBF and we should respect all of members. I believe Peace and Respect is the key for better life.
In general “digital vs analog” debate is not a simple subject. There are many parameters that affect on the result and in practice we do not reach the ultimate capacity of both formats with our non ideal audio hardwares.
In theory digital seems to be better when we look at standard AES measurements but in practice the story is different.
I have digital but I prefer analog more.
I think properly implemented digital technology is ok but there are some problems that does not allow us to hear the ultimate capacity of digital technology.
1- good/perfect disc transport is rare, I believe only CEC TL0 3.0 can show you digital capacity of CD format. Digital quality depends on transport quality even more than DAC.
2- good/perfect file/stream transport does not exist in this market. Computers and expensive music servers do not show you the ultimate digital capacity.
3- standard redbook Disc (CD) formats is not good/ideal for sound quality.
4- high rez digital File format 24/96khz or 24/88khz pcm or wide dsd is good but only in digital raw file format not processed digital file format. It means only AAD direct from analog to digital raw file is ok.
The problem is most digital records are not AAD and digital processing degrade the sound quality.
5- digital is more complex than analog because the original signal is analog and digital needs two steps more processing: 1- Analog to digital conversion and 2- Digital to Analog conversion so non ideal ADC and DAC decrease the fidelity of signal.
Micro and other digital lovers all are members of WBF and we should respect all of members. I believe Peace and Respect is the key for better life.
In general “digital vs analog” debate is not a simple subject. There are many parameters that affect on the result and in practice we do not reach the ultimate capacity of both formats with our non ideal audio hardwares.
In theory digital seems to be better when we look at standard AES measurements but in practice the story is different.
I have digital but I prefer analog more.
I think properly implemented digital technology is ok but there are some problems that does not allow us to hear the ultimate capacity of digital technology.
1- good/perfect disc transport is rare, I believe only CEC TL0 3.0 can show you digital capacity of CD format. Digital quality depends on transport quality even more than DAC.
2- good/perfect file/stream transport does not exist in this market. Computers and expensive music servers do not show you the ultimate digital capacity.
3- standard redbook Disc (CD) formats is not good/ideal for sound quality.
4- high rez digital File format 24/96khz or 24/88khz pcm or wide dsd is good but only in digital raw file format not processed digital file format. It means only AAD direct from analog to digital raw file is ok.
The problem is most digital records are not AAD and digital processing degrade the sound quality.
5- digital is more complex than analog because the original signal is analog and digital needs two steps more processing: 1- Analog to digital conversion and 2- Digital to Analog conversion so non ideal ADC and DAC decrease the fidelity of signal.
Last edited:
Romy the Cat idea about digital vs analog debate :
“As I said: most debates on the subject that I ever heard so far are not accurate representation of Analog vs. Digital dilemma. The same as the discussion in this thread about the “natural continuous process”, the “discrete process” and the “brain reconstruction illusion” is in a way missing the whole point of Analog vs. Digital. Why do I feel that the typical Analog vs. Digital observations are self-disqualifiable? Because observing Analog and observing digital we in 99999.99% cases observe apple and oranges and try to compare them. Let me to explain.
When people play analog they play what they play. Would it be a master tape, or 63647th copy of that tape or analog-mastered LP or heavily “mastered” surrogate of it – on all cases we play analog material. It is good or bad but the best expels of it give an idea what analog is capable of.
With digital it is a bit tricky. If you have an A/D converter and you possess the love sound of analog material then we have a digital material that might be sensible compared with analog. However, the result of direct conversion of analog into digital is practically NEVER exposed to audio people. The audio people who love to run mouths about Analog vs. Digital do it by playing commercial CD, SACD, DVD or whatever else, with recognizing that in digital they are in the very end of very long receiving line of all imaginable digital nastiness and what they have is in fact not “digital” and it could be by the definition of class but rather an ugly surrogate of industry digital diarrhea.
Digital and analog are different by nature. It is not about descritization but about the fact that improperly “mastered” analog make sound worse but do not loose subconscious spiritual affect of musicality, recognized at higher level of musical perception. (link). With Digital is it different. In contrary, the corrupted digital tears the core of musical expressivity, making sound unfertile and not communicative. Beyond all of it there is the absolutely ridicules fact that industry embrace digital primary because the industry needed to manage the digital corruption or as they call it the “digital editing”.
The said truth is that analog is editable but digital is not. The rule of the game is the analog can’t delay but only filter but digital can’t filter but only delay. That fundamental disability of digital to filter (and consequential change of volume), as any slope introduced in digital implies tossing away bits, is the source of all problems with digital. The raw files that were taken right after A/D processor are the ONLY true digital but audio people practically never see those files. But if file was ever exposed to any, even the .025dB, volume change, any filtration of any other actions that implies DSP pressing then the files are already not “digital” but wasted surrogate. So, any “edited” file, a file with bit-rate change, a sampling rate change, a format change are not the representative of what digital is all bout but rather the evidence how much possible to screw up digital without recognizing it.
So, when audio people play their analog sources and “compare” it to CDs, DVDs or SACDs and they feel that they compare it to “digital” then they are engaged in a self-delusion. Practically all CDs are severely edited digitally. Furthermore when even a raw digital file is rendered into CD layout then digital is losing 90% of own potency. The same is with DVD. I played the raw 96/24 files and they are fine but as soon I put them in DVD format then it become to sound like garbage. I do not even talk about the SACD. Before Sony and Phillips were running from their ending in 2003 their 30 years patent over Red Book CD, they requested a development a new format to continue to have market control. Ed Meitner was recruited and he designed a brilliant 4-bit format that he called DSD. I was in presence during a listening session where the untouched just recorded row 4-bit DSD files were played right off the HD where were recorded. It was absolutely stunning. Of course later the superb 4-bit DSD become simplified and insufficient 1-bit SACD that the Morons still call DSD… The fact that that most SACD is edited in PCM and then converted is not one bothered…
Anyhow, the point is that audio people do not deal with original raw digital file therefore their comments about Analog vs. Digital are not relevant as they do not see the true digital but rather a digital crap. Ironic is that the only people who qualified to make the argument about Analog vs. Digital are the pro audio flaks who deal with raw files juts after the A/D processors. Over all my time in audio I heard very view people who ever spoke about the subject credibly from my point of view. The all were audio engineers who deal with raw files. I have seen people who refuse to do 88kHz to 44kHz conversion but instead they D/A 88kHz files and then A/D the feed to 44kHz as they feel that it has less damage to Sound then DSP 88kHz to 44kHz. I have seen people who feel that raw 172/24 files from a good processor are not better or worse than 15ips, 1” tape but sufficient enough to do compare Analog vs. Digital anymore. I made in past some demos of playing raw HDCD encoder files that I made with Pacific and I assure you that no one in would believe that they were crapy 44/16 files. Now, try to make ANY change in those file sor put it to CD and the “magic” will be gone…
So, to summarize the thing: the Analog vs. Digital debate by audio consumes, is a bogus debate because in the culture of audio and musical industry the consumers have no dealing with “Digital”. Instead they deal with a residue of a long line of Digital barbarism and therefore the contest between Analog vs. Digital Surrogate is not reasonable, thus self-disqualifying.
Rgs, Romy the Cat“
“As I said: most debates on the subject that I ever heard so far are not accurate representation of Analog vs. Digital dilemma. The same as the discussion in this thread about the “natural continuous process”, the “discrete process” and the “brain reconstruction illusion” is in a way missing the whole point of Analog vs. Digital. Why do I feel that the typical Analog vs. Digital observations are self-disqualifiable? Because observing Analog and observing digital we in 99999.99% cases observe apple and oranges and try to compare them. Let me to explain.
When people play analog they play what they play. Would it be a master tape, or 63647th copy of that tape or analog-mastered LP or heavily “mastered” surrogate of it – on all cases we play analog material. It is good or bad but the best expels of it give an idea what analog is capable of.
With digital it is a bit tricky. If you have an A/D converter and you possess the love sound of analog material then we have a digital material that might be sensible compared with analog. However, the result of direct conversion of analog into digital is practically NEVER exposed to audio people. The audio people who love to run mouths about Analog vs. Digital do it by playing commercial CD, SACD, DVD or whatever else, with recognizing that in digital they are in the very end of very long receiving line of all imaginable digital nastiness and what they have is in fact not “digital” and it could be by the definition of class but rather an ugly surrogate of industry digital diarrhea.
Digital and analog are different by nature. It is not about descritization but about the fact that improperly “mastered” analog make sound worse but do not loose subconscious spiritual affect of musicality, recognized at higher level of musical perception. (link). With Digital is it different. In contrary, the corrupted digital tears the core of musical expressivity, making sound unfertile and not communicative. Beyond all of it there is the absolutely ridicules fact that industry embrace digital primary because the industry needed to manage the digital corruption or as they call it the “digital editing”.
The said truth is that analog is editable but digital is not. The rule of the game is the analog can’t delay but only filter but digital can’t filter but only delay. That fundamental disability of digital to filter (and consequential change of volume), as any slope introduced in digital implies tossing away bits, is the source of all problems with digital. The raw files that were taken right after A/D processor are the ONLY true digital but audio people practically never see those files. But if file was ever exposed to any, even the .025dB, volume change, any filtration of any other actions that implies DSP pressing then the files are already not “digital” but wasted surrogate. So, any “edited” file, a file with bit-rate change, a sampling rate change, a format change are not the representative of what digital is all bout but rather the evidence how much possible to screw up digital without recognizing it.
So, when audio people play their analog sources and “compare” it to CDs, DVDs or SACDs and they feel that they compare it to “digital” then they are engaged in a self-delusion. Practically all CDs are severely edited digitally. Furthermore when even a raw digital file is rendered into CD layout then digital is losing 90% of own potency. The same is with DVD. I played the raw 96/24 files and they are fine but as soon I put them in DVD format then it become to sound like garbage. I do not even talk about the SACD. Before Sony and Phillips were running from their ending in 2003 their 30 years patent over Red Book CD, they requested a development a new format to continue to have market control. Ed Meitner was recruited and he designed a brilliant 4-bit format that he called DSD. I was in presence during a listening session where the untouched just recorded row 4-bit DSD files were played right off the HD where were recorded. It was absolutely stunning. Of course later the superb 4-bit DSD become simplified and insufficient 1-bit SACD that the Morons still call DSD… The fact that that most SACD is edited in PCM and then converted is not one bothered…
Anyhow, the point is that audio people do not deal with original raw digital file therefore their comments about Analog vs. Digital are not relevant as they do not see the true digital but rather a digital crap. Ironic is that the only people who qualified to make the argument about Analog vs. Digital are the pro audio flaks who deal with raw files juts after the A/D processors. Over all my time in audio I heard very view people who ever spoke about the subject credibly from my point of view. The all were audio engineers who deal with raw files. I have seen people who refuse to do 88kHz to 44kHz conversion but instead they D/A 88kHz files and then A/D the feed to 44kHz as they feel that it has less damage to Sound then DSP 88kHz to 44kHz. I have seen people who feel that raw 172/24 files from a good processor are not better or worse than 15ips, 1” tape but sufficient enough to do compare Analog vs. Digital anymore. I made in past some demos of playing raw HDCD encoder files that I made with Pacific and I assure you that no one in would believe that they were crapy 44/16 files. Now, try to make ANY change in those file sor put it to CD and the “magic” will be gone…
So, to summarize the thing: the Analog vs. Digital debate by audio consumes, is a bogus debate because in the culture of audio and musical industry the consumers have no dealing with “Digital”. Instead they deal with a residue of a long line of Digital barbarism and therefore the contest between Analog vs. Digital Surrogate is not reasonable, thus self-disqualifying.
Rgs, Romy the Cat“
I would have suspected that most microphones aer hooked up to ADC front ends as step #1.
There is a race condition between social-signalling, FOMO, and general salesmanship that is driving the forum pretty hard.
But maybe I shoud be on the whatsacceptableforum website.
- Status
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |