Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[MarkusBarkus]

Imagine the pizza claim.

...but Joe, these are pizza experts judging the proceedings.

 

[Joe Whip]

My bad ; -)

 

[thedudeabides]

It seems that it is time to end this thread.

My reaction. Another D vs A thread with the same things being said that have been stated so many times before. And what is missing, again, is a discussion of why we listen to music in the first place regardless of format. There seems to be an obsession with the messenger vs the message. Oh well.

 

[SoundMann]

Most vinyl today are sourced from digital recordings.

Even those that claim to be sourced from analog tape (digital step)!

 

[SoundMann]

This thread will go on and on because there is no definitive answer to the original question.

Well, If serious listeners who are intimately familiar with live unamplified acoustic sound could directly compare a Wadax and Zanden using the very best acoustic cds and high order dsd recordings to a TechDAS Air Force Zero with the most transparent tonearm, cartridge and phonostage playing the best acoustic direct to disc pressings, they may actually have a chance of resolving this issue.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well, If serious listeners who are intimately familiar with live unamplified acoustic sound could directly compare a Wadax and Zanden using the very best acoustic cds and high order dsd recordings to a TechDAS Air Force Zero with the most transparent tonearm, cartridge and phonostage playing the best acoustic direct to disc pressings, they may actually have a chance of resolving this issue.

effectively i do that every day. and one better, i have my Ampex ATR-102 with MR 70 preamps too. plenty of effective SOTA analog gear and media.

 

[PeterA]

I currently have both digital and vinyl front ends. For the most part I think my vinyl playback sounds, let's say, 10% better than most of my comparable digital recordings (IMO). I've got the itch to try MSB or DCS stacks to take out that last percentage . Problem is I'm not convinced I could get there even after spending 10"s of thousands of dollars to do it. I'm fairly happy with my current DAC/Streamer and was thinking it might make better sense to wait a couple of years to see what may shake out of vendors in this fast changing technology. For those who are or were in a similar situation any advice would be appreciated.

Perhaps we can return to your original post and origin of this thread.

You prefer the sound of your vinyl playback by a certain amount which you refer to as about 10%. Your question is: can you buy top digital for lots of money and enjoy it as much as your current vinyl playback? Or should you wait because the technology is rapidly improving, or so some think.

I think the only way you can answer this question is to contact a dealer and try to get those DACs into your system, listen to your favorite music for as long as you can keep the units, and make a decision based on whatever criteria you use.

Absent that, you will just have endless speculation and arguments as demonstrated in this thread. Ron, has made the claim that the latest digital tech with Hi-Rez stored files basically sounds as good as his vinyl with the standard being “ his suspension of disbelief”. His sample set is eight days of listening to his digital versus his vintage turntable. That is a lot different from your digital and your vinyl and your standard.

We each have our preferences and when you ask for advice, you will hear people talking about their preferences. It sounds to me like you have some auditioning to do so that you can answer this question for yourself.

As an aside, I was just sent a video of some vintage gear in a bedroom system with a cheap old digital CD player. It was some of the most natural convincing sound I’ve ever heard from the system video. Everything was just sitting on the floor with cheap wires and extension cords and I could not believe the quality of the sound.

Based on that video, I’m not sure I would be searching for the latest and greatest DACs.

 

[microstrip]

But these digital copies of the same thread keep changing slightly. What does that tell you?

Well, Peter, we learned that people who do not close their eyes when listening are supposed to dislike music ...

 

[microstrip]

The funny thing, this discussion reminds me of the ones that we used to have on this forum around 2015 or so. In the interim it appeared that we had grown out of them, at least to some extent, but here you have this weird throwback to "good ole times". As if it was 2015 -- or 1985, for that matter.

(Ok, I'll concede, in 1985 the discussion was much more warranted than it is today.)

In fact our current discussion about these matters in WBF is much narrow minded and circumspect that the discussions in the rec.audio.xxx newsgroups around 2000. At that time we had the active participation of sound engineers and reports of experiences they had carried, including the use of mic feeds. The debate was very active in paper magazines, unfortunately this information is not easily accessible today.

Current the debate focus on expensive gear, listening fatigue, headaches and individual preferences of aged audiophiles - surely of interest, but a limited perspective. Many feelings, but little data.

 

[SoundMann]

ICurrent the debate focus on expensive gear, listening fatigue, headaches and individual preferences of aged audiophiles - surely of interest, but a limited perspective. Many feelings, but little data.

Which is why I insist that all such comparisons must be measured against a reliable reference.

Feelings and subjective opinions be damned.

 

[Another Johnson]

Well, If serious listeners who are intimately familiar with live unamplified acoustic sound could directly compare a Wadax and Zanden using the very best acoustic cds and high order dsd recordings to a TechDAS Air Force Zero with the most transparent tonearm, cartridge and phonostage playing the best acoustic direct to disc pressings, they may actually have a chance of resolving this issue.

That might answer the question for those “chosen ones.” But it does nothing to answer the question for anyone else. Frankly I don’t think it will answer the question for all of those few. They will not agree in general.

You have to answer the question for yourself. No one else can answer it for you. Not even the arrogant who insist that they can.

If we understand the nearly 100 year old study on human hearing sensitivity by Fletcher and Munson, we quickly realize that there is not a unique human hearing profile. People hear differently. People process sound waves according to their own physiological and psychological construction.

Once this is understood, arguing about this stuff can only be for the purpose of convincing everyone else that you own the ultimate set of ears and that all listeners should bow before their undeniably perfect choices.

Most of the time the arguments will be poorly received, as evidenced by the responses in this thread.

 

[SoundMann]

That might answer the question for those “chosen ones.” But it does nothing to answer the question for anyone else. Frankly I don’t think it will answer the question for all of those few. They will not agree in general.

You have to answer the question for yourself. No one else can answer it for you. Not even the arrogant who insist that they can.

If we understand the nearly 100 year old study on human hearing sensitivity by Fletcher and Munson, we quickly realize that there is not a unique human hearing profile. People hear differently. People process sound waves according to their own physiological and psychological construction.

Once this is understood, arguing about this stuff can only be for the purpose of convincing everyone else that you own the ultimate set of ears and that all listeners should bow before their undeniably perfect choices.

Most of the time the arguments will be poorly received, as evidenced by the responses in this thread.

Yes. I agree with premise of what you state here. My original intent was to present the mostly unanimous findings of a private test involving some of the most revered industry insiders (who will remain unmentioned), and let the chips fall where they may.

Also, the Fletcher Munson curve only deals with the coarse physical limitations of the human hearing mechanism, while ignoring the intellectual aspect of it which is far more relevant to our actual level of hearing acuity.

 

[microstrip]

Well, If serious listeners (...)

Wow, what are the requirements to become a serious listener?

 

[PeterA]

Which is why I insist that all such comparisons must be measured against a reliable reference.

Feelings and subjective opinions be damned.

I agree with your reference of live unamplified instruments and voice.

 

[Al M.]

Which is why I insist that all such comparisons must be measured against a reliable reference.

Feelings and subjective opinions be damned.

What reliable reference? Unamplified live music?

 

[SoundMann]

Wow, what are the requirements to become a serious listener?

A lot more than people realize, and I don't want to offend anyone here, but the majority of those engaged in this hobby simply don't hear well enough to truly qualify (which isn't necessary to enjoy the fruits of it).

 

[SoundMann]

What reliable reference? Unamplified live music?

Live unamplified acoustical performances preferably.

 

[Dustin Symanski]

That might answer the question for those “chosen ones.” But it does nothing to answer the question for anyone else. Frankly I don’t think it will answer the question for all of those few. They will not agree in general.

You have to answer the question for yourself. No one else can answer it for you. Not even the arrogant who insist that they can.

If we understand the nearly 100 year old study on human hearing sensitivity by Fletcher and Munson, we quickly realize that there is not a unique human hearing profile. People hear differently. People process sound waves according to their own physiological and psychological construction.

Once this is understood, arguing about this stuff can only be for the purpose of convincing everyone else that you own the ultimate set of ears and that all listeners should bow before their undeniably perfect choices.

Most of the time the arguments will be poorly received, as evidenced by the responses in this thread.

I once did a company wide survey of hearing with the goal to develop a volume control algorithm that took loundness and frequency into account. The participants sat in front of a calibrated speaker and matched the volumes of pilot tones to probe tone with a handheld contoller. Two of the participants did give perceptual curves similar to the Fletcher Munson curves. All participants showed the hearing sensitivity bump at around 2Khz. The rest of the approximately 12 participants had widely divergent high and low frequency perception with respect to volume. All the way from flat perception with accurate volume perception, to one participant who couldn't reach appropriate bass levels for themselves because the amp ran out of power. One participant could even accurately match pilot tones at all volume levels tested to 23Khz which was the limit of the test I had prepared. I estimate her hearing to have extended past 24Khz. In the end with so much variation I gave up on the idea of combining volume control with frequency response adjustment.

 

[Rexp]

Preferences have nothing to do with whether the sound of digital playback is better than analogue playback. Which ever reproduces live acoustic instruments is better.
This is not about icecream flavours!

 

[Rexp]

Some folks haven't heard good digital playback, here are two videos comparing digital to analogue. In one the digital gets close, in the other the vinyl is way ahead (even on youtube):