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

[rDin]

Enjoy the music much as possible whiles you can. We only have one life, make the best of it!

While your appeal resonates, it doesn't satisfy one's natural curiosity on these subjects. Indeed, the name of this forum is an implicit call to curiosity! Let's enjoy both music and *good faith* discussions on related subjects.

 

[Al M.]

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.

Rensselaer replied:

91: arguments in favour of vinyl aren't very good...among the very worst; the popularity of vinyl today-most of which is digitally sourced "for crying out loud".
238: Funny that it is mostly certain vinyl enthusiasts who want to impose their subjective perceptions and preferences onto others and show the superiority of their tastes that should be shared by everyone.

Admittedly I should have been more accurate in my formulation. My statement:
"I have also not ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA",
was in direct response to the wording of your accusation.

Yet in the context of your post the real point was not, or should not have been, if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA, but if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA *for their preference*.

I have never done the latter. Never.

Yes, I did ridicule or heavily criticize bad arguments in favor of vinyl and against digital. And yes, I did ridicule the snobbish attitude of some vinyl enthusiasts who tout the alleged superiority of their tastes. But I have not ridiculed or even criticized a preference for vinyl.

I have only on a number of occasions explained why vinyl is not for me personally, but I have no problem with others' preferences for vinyl. What is more, I enjoy vinyl in friends' systems. Hey, sometimes I even ask them for hearing great vinyl!

Yet when it comes to criticism, I have not only criticized bad or questionable arguments against digital, I have also criticized bad or questionable arguments against vinyl. I just don't like bad or questionable arguments, period, regardless which side they come from.

In #419 I have agreed with Brad (morricab) that Carlos' argument against vinyl, based on greater "accuracy" of digital in terms of magnitude of measurable errors, is flawed:

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

How accurately the signal at outputs compares to the data at the inputs, it’s that simple. That is the only frame for evaluation of accuracy. An interesting comment from Cookie Marenco was that she found (comparing digital formats in her studio) PCM to be more accurate to the sound produced by...

www.whatsbestforum.com

What is more, numerous times I have explicitly defended vinyl, for example on resolution and dynamics in #472 here:

Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

Why can't we agree that a) From a specification perspective, digital (DSD in particular) has the upper hand on vinyl. b) Vinyl "colorations" for lack of a better word offer the human ear more pleasing sonics (for some). c) No recording format or system sounds like the live event, they are a...

www.whatsbestforum.com

So if you think that
a) I am attacking the preference for vinyl
b) I instinctively and uncritically always defend digital (for my critical attitude when it comes to digital, see #552 from this morning)

you just haven't paid attention. You would not be the first one on the forum.

 

[Carlos269]

In #419 I have agreed with Brad (morricab) that Carlos' argument against vinyl, based on greater "accuracy" of digital in terms of magnitude of measurable errors, is flawed:

Al, is your position that digital playback is not more accurate than analog playback?

I assume that you will respond that you do believe that digital playback is more accurate than analog playback. So if it’s not more accurate because of the magnitude of measureable errors, then why is it more accurate?

I’m curious to hear how you explain yourself on this one, as you have put yourself in a difficult situation of trying the explain accuracy in different terms than relative to errors.

 

[Rensselaer]

Rensselaer replied:



Admittedly I should have been more accurate in my formulation. My statement:
"I have also not ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA",
was in direct response to the wording of your accusation.

Yet in the context of your post the real point was not, or should not have been, if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA, but if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA *for their preference*.

I have never done the latter. Never.

Yes, I did ridicule or heavily criticize bad arguments in favor of vinyl and against digital. And yes, I did ridicule the snobbish attitude of some vinyl enthusiasts who tout the alleged superiority of their tastes. But I have not ridiculed or even criticized a preference for vinyl.

I have only on a number of occasions explained why vinyl is not for me personally, but I have no problem with others' preferences for vinyl. What is more, I enjoy vinyl in friends' systems. Hey, sometimes I even ask for hearing great vinyl!

Yet I have not only criticized bad or questionable arguments against digital, I have also criticized bad or questionable arguments against vinyl. I just don't like bad or questionable arguments, period, regardless which side they come from.

In #419 I have agreed with Brad (morricab) that Carlos' argument against vinyl, based on greater "accuracy" of digital in terms of magnitude of measurable errors, is flawed:

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

How accurately the signal at outputs compares to the data at the inputs, it’s that simple. That is the only frame for evaluation of accuracy. An interesting comment from Cookie Marenco was that she found (comparing digital formats in her studio) PCM to be more accurate to the sound produced by...

www.whatsbestforum.com

What is more, numerous times I have explicitly defended vinyl, for example on dynamics in #478 here:

Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

Why can't we agree that a) From a specification perspective, digital (DSD in particular) has the upper hand on vinyl. b) Vinyl "colorations" for lack of a better word offer the human ear more pleasing sonics (for some). c) No recording format or system sounds like the live event, they are a...

www.whatsbestforum.com

So if you think that
a) I am attacking the preference for vinyl
b) I instinctively and uncritically always defend digital (for my critical attitude when it comes to digital, see #552 from this morning)

you just haven't paid attention. You would not be the first one on the forum.

Let’s just forget it, give everyone else a break and start fresh?

 

[Al M.]

Let’s just forget it, give everyone else a break and start fresh?

That sounds like a fabulous idea!

 

[morricab]

Oh man... The OP was simply pointing out that since lately, his TT rig & vinyl has provided more enjoyment compared to the digital rig. He just wanted to share the experience, that's all!

And now we have a conflict, arguments left & right, people slapping each other silly, bold statements and ultimatums... is this behaviour really all that necessary?
Jee wiz maties, just get along and most of all, enjoy those fine tunes!

Who cares if one fornat is better than the other, just enjoy the music. We already have plenty of wars, corporate crimes, natural disasters and all sorts of other shenanigans... it's really disappointing to see all this bickering amongst a tiny group, when we could all be far more civil and respect each other's views. After all, isn't that the purpose of this forum? To learn from other's experiences and share our very own. Very sad to see this thread going in a negative way.

In fact, getting back to the OP's experience on vinyl, I can certainly relate to that. Especially with good recordings. Same goes with digital, well recorded material is played back with highest Fidelity and that's what it's all about. Nothing else really. So no point in pulling your hair out.

Enjoy the music much as possible whiles you can. We only have one life, make the best of it!
Cheers, RJ

Then each thread would be like, 5 posts and done...where's the fun in that????

 

[morricab]

Rensselaer replied:



Admittedly I should have been more accurate in my formulation. My statement:
"I have also not ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA",
was in direct response to the wording of your accusation.

Yet in the context of your post the real point was not, or should not have been, if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA, but if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA *for their preference*.

I have never done the latter. Never.

Yes, I did ridicule or heavily criticize bad arguments in favor of vinyl and against digital. And yes, I did ridicule the snobbish attitude of some vinyl enthusiasts who tout the alleged superiority of their tastes. But I have not ridiculed or even criticized a preference for vinyl.

I have only on a number of occasions explained why vinyl is not for me personally, but I have no problem with others' preferences for vinyl. What is more, I enjoy vinyl in friends' systems. Hey, sometimes I even ask them for hearing great vinyl!

Yet when it comes to criticism, I have not only criticized bad or questionable arguments against digital, I have also criticized bad or questionable arguments against vinyl. I just don't like bad or questionable arguments, period, regardless which side they come from.

In #419 I have agreed with Brad (morricab) that Carlos' argument against vinyl, based on greater "accuracy" of digital in terms of magnitude of measurable errors, is flawed:

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

How accurately the signal at outputs compares to the data at the inputs, it’s that simple. That is the only frame for evaluation of accuracy. An interesting comment from Cookie Marenco was that she found (comparing digital formats in her studio) PCM to be more accurate to the sound produced by...

www.whatsbestforum.com

What is more, numerous times I have explicitly defended vinyl, for example on resolution and dynamics in #472 here:

Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

Why can't we agree that a) From a specification perspective, digital (DSD in particular) has the upper hand on vinyl. b) Vinyl "colorations" for lack of a better word offer the human ear more pleasing sonics (for some). c) No recording format or system sounds like the live event, they are a...

www.whatsbestforum.com

So if you think that
a) I am attacking the preference for vinyl
b) I instinctively and uncritically always defend digital (for my critical attitude when it comes to digital, see #552 from this morning)

you just haven't paid attention. You would not be the first one on the forum.

Just out of curiosity, have you tried and SPDIF version of your MIT SL-Matrix Digital Plus AES/EBU cable (1.5 m)? I would be very curious to know if you hear a significant difference like I do between SPDIF and AES/EBU interfaces.

 

[morricab]

Al, is your position that digital playback is not more accurate than analog playback?

I assume that you will respond that you do believe that digital playback is more accurate than analog playback. So if it’s not more accurate because of the magnitude of measureable errors, then why is it more accurate?

I’m curious to hear how you explain yourself on this one, as you have put yourself in a difficult situation of trying the explain accuracy in different terms than relative to errors.

Accuracy in audio is not defined by lowest THD and IMD...unless you are a pure objectivist like at ASR forum. So, you can say that digital has lower measurable distortion than analog and that is mostly true...although there is a very interesting article in Audioholics that challenges some of those notions.

In a word, accuracy in audio comes down to psychoacoustics. Geddes, Cheever and others have demonstrated that what measures the best may not sound the most realistic to a human listener. I don't say forget your oscilloscopes and FFT analyzers but for sure don't look at the raw numbers without understanding how humans hear that data. So, while accuracy in audio is messy, and yes somewhat subjective, it is not as simple as your sine wave reconstruction test...period.

 

[Al M.]

Just out of curiosity, have you tried and SPDIF version of your MIT SL-Matrix Digital Plus AES/EBU cable (1.5 m)? I would be very curious to know if you hear a significant difference like I do between SPDIF and AES/EBU interfaces.

No, I haven't. I have a spare high-quality BNC cable (which is also SPDIF), but I lent it to a friend of mine. I'll ask him for it next time so I can compare.

 

[Carlos269]

Accuracy in audio is not defined by lowest THD and IMD...unless you are a pure objectivist like at ASR forum. So, you can say that digital has lower measurable distortion than analog and that is mostly true...although there is a very interesting article in Audioholics that challenges some of those notions.

In a word, accuracy in audio comes down to psychoacoustics. Geddes, Cheever and others have demonstrated that what measures the best may not sound the most realistic to a human listener. I don't say forget your oscilloscopes and FFT analyzers but for sure don't look at the raw numbers without understanding how humans hear that data. So, while accuracy in audio is messy, and yes somewhat subjective, it is not as simple as your sine wave reconstruction test...period.

The discussion was about the accuracy of the playback, period. If you take other things into consideration then things become more complicated but we must first establish a baseline with regards to the accuracy of the equipment and technologies used for playback. You can always fend arguments away by opening up the discussion but we are speaking strictly of analog versus digital playback equipment and technologies here. As the lawyer’s say, you can always throw weasel words or phrases to dilute someone else’s argument, but this is strictly about playback equipment and technologies.

 

[Al M.]

Accuracy in audio is not defined by lowest THD and IMD...unless you are a pure objectivist like at ASR forum. So, you can say that digital has lower measurable distortion than analog and that is mostly true...although there is a very interesting article in Audioholics that challenges some of those notions.

In a word, accuracy in audio comes down to psychoacoustics. Geddes, Cheever and others have demonstrated that what measures the best may not sound the most realistic to a human listener. I don't say forget your oscilloscopes and FFT analyzers but for sure don't look at the raw numbers without understanding how humans hear that data. So, while accuracy in audio is messy, and yes somewhat subjective, it is not as simple as your sine wave reconstruction test...period.

Great answer.

 

[Carlos269]

Great answer.

No, not really.

 

[Al M.]

No, not really.

Of course you would say that. You don't even seem to understand the argument Brad is making, an argument that I fully support.

 

[morricab]

The discussion was about the accuracy of the playback, period. If you take other things into consideration then things becomes more complicated but we must first establish a baseline with regards to the accuracy of the equipment and technologies used for playback. You can always fend arguments away by opening up the discussion but we are speaking strictly of analog versus digital playback equipment and technologies here. As the lawyer’s say, you can always throw weasel words or phrases to dilute someone else’s argument, but this is strictly about playback equipment and technologies.

You and Amir would get along just fine over at ASR...

 

[Al M.]

You and Amir would get along just fine over at ASR...

Oh yeah.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You and Amir would get along just fine over at ASR...

especially about video's........NOT.

 

[Carlos269]

You and Amir would get along just fine over at ASR...

Oh yeah.

especially about video's........NOT.

State your position on record regarding the accuracy of analog versus digital playback. That’s how it starts, you take a position and then provide evidence to support your position. Of the four of us, I’m the only one that has done both, while you guys are hanging out in the peanut gallery. Take a stand and justify your position. It will be a more effective strategy for you than playing king of the hill with me.

 

[Rensselaer]

Looks like I got out of this in the nick of time

 

[Mike Lavigne]

State your position on record regarding the accuracy of analog versus digital playback. That’s how it starts, you take a position and then provide evidence to support your position. Of the four of us, I’m the only one that has done both, while you guys are hanging out in the peanut gallery. Take a stand and justify your position. It will be a more effective strategy for you than playing king of the hill with me.

i listen to 80% digital and love it. have a huge investment in it. it's amazing and as i sit here listening it's hard to imagine i need anything better.

i respect that there are alternatives to my Wadax. i've not heard everything. who knows what the future might bring.

at it's best vinyl and tape are a little objectively better at attaining the highest musical heights. but the gap has closed especially with this most recent Wadax step forward.

i'm not into proof, never have been and never will be. i'm a listener. i justify my position with having made huge commitments to every aspect of system building and optimizing each format including media. and then listening to all three all the time, as well as frequent feedback from visitors to my room agreeing with my perspective and that my format efforts seem to be top flight. i'm at peace with my views.

i respect your desire to somehow justify your views of your approach. hope you find what you are seeking somehow.

i don't care that much about accuracy. it's just an aspect of system building and decision making. dozens of times i have stated that digital is more accurate but incomplete, analog is much more complete but adds distortion. our senses much prefer complete. it's more real to humans. the Wadax is certainly the most complete digital i have heard.

 

[Carlos269]

i listen to 80% digital and love it. have a huge investment in it. it's amazing and as i sit here listening it's hard to imagine i need anything better.

i respect that there are alternatives to my Wadax. i've not heard everything. who knows what the future might bring.

Hopefully you will get to listen to an optimized HQPLAYER based system at some point.

at it's best vinyl and tape are a little objectively better at attaining the highest musical heights. but the gap has closed especially with this most recent Wadax step forward.

Tape and vinyl have a euphoric sound. I certainly like the sound of both but know that they are not neutral.

i'm not into proof, never have been and never will be. i'm a listener. i justify my position with having made huge commitments to every aspect of system building and optimizing each format including media. and then listening to all three all the time, as well as frequent feedback from visitors to my room agreeing with my perspective and that my format efforts seem to be top flight. i'm at peace with my views.

Have any visitors provided you with constructive criticism?

i respect your desire to somehow justify your views of your approach. hope you find what you are seeking somehow.

My life and career have center around science and technology. Validation and confirmation are not “nice to haves” but required in my professional life. Gut-feel and intuition are not good enough on the type of projects that I work on so those standards have been a part of my life for a long time.

i don't care that much about accuracy. it's just an aspect of system building and decision making. dozens of times i have stated that digital is more accurate but incomplete, analog is much more complete but adds distortion. our senses much prefer complete.

You do realize that the output of the dac is analog and it is the same type of waveform of the analog sources; when you are listing to digital playback you are not listening to segments but a continuous waveform indispensable from that of any other analog source. So that “completeness” argument dissolves in plain air.

it's more real to humans.

There are a few humans on here that beg to differ.

the Wadax is certainly the most complete digital i have heard.