I believe I do. Nothing good for the emotional engagement of music as processed by the human brain comes from an analog waveform's unnecessary conversion to digital.
Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?
- Thread starter godofwealth
- Start date
- Status
That's how I read it as well. I found the complaints about what you wrote rather strange.
That's how I see it as well. It's unrelated. As I said before, what really matters for sound quality is which conversion introduces quantitatively more, and/or more psychoacoustically relevant, distortion (i.e., deviation from the analog waveform of the original music signal) at the end of the process. People may have different opinions on that matter, but that is the real question.
To my ears and preferences, the distortions of digital are no worse (at least as I hear it from my specific digital rig) than the distortions of analog vinyl, and I prefer digital because of availability of music on the medium, lack of surface noise and other factors. Vinyl is fine and I enjoy it, but I don't need it for my personal emotional engagement with the music.
If anyone has different opinions and preferences about the matter, that's fine too. But those are just personal preferences, no absolute truths.
The thread title is also just a personal, subjective opinion, nothing more.
That's not an explanation, Ron, that's a subjective feeling.
A subjective feeling that I don't share.
Al,. Since you disagree with Ron’s comment that nothing good comes from the unnecessary conversion of an analog wave form to digital, could you explain what good in your opinion do you think does come from such a conversion in terms of emotional engagement?
...this is a first for me: I will "unwatch" this thread. I don't even know how to process this comment.
The only "good" in terms of musical engagement that can come out of a conversion, be it digital or analog, is if it is preserved with respect to the original music signal *). With good implementation of digital, emotional engagement is preserved to a degree comparable to good analog, at least for me. Others subjectively may feel differently, and that's fine too.
_______________
*) Some would say that emotional engagement can actually be enhanced by euphonic distortion. Yet this kind of distortion is something that is not usually associated with the digital medium.
Ok, I understand you think that the artifacts added by tape and vinyl are good for the emotional enjoyment of stereo music and the extra information carried by a system conveying more real information is harmful to musical enjoyment. Ok.
Listeners of sound reproduction went through similar discussions when electronics entered sound reproduction, replacing the purely mechanical systems. Later when stereo was introduced history repeated - you still can find people stating that the stereo artificiality kills music.
BTW, for me the interesting part of these debates is understanding the why's of each argument - not what someone prefers, that we should respect. YMMV.
Not to jump in défense of either vinyl disk analog (or tape for that matter) or digital, hirez or otherwise, as I enjoy both in about equal measure. What I would say is that both are an incomplete transcription of an event and each format has its own unique set of sins of omission and commission.
If anyone here actually thinks that their cartridge is completely accurately tracing the grooves that were imperfectly cut driven by an imperfect amp and then imperfectly transferred through like 4 or 5 steps and then perhaps at the end of 10000 records off of that stamper…well then I have some prime Everglades real estate to sell you. Then your record players speed variability is further messing up the decoding of the encoded signal, plus whatever resonances are there from platter, arm etc. Then the distortion from the inverse RIAA and electronic circuit of the phonostage…again due to encoding limitations of vinyl. All of that gives a type of signature, which is nothing more or less than additive and subtractive deviations from perfect.
Digital has its own set of flaws, sampling limitations, aliasing, filters, pre-ringing, jitter etc. Etc.
The net effect is that the two formats sound quite different (although this might be more of an “audiophile “ difference) and probably will never sound the same because the fundamental errors created with each format are totally alien to the other format. Those who think vinyl distinctly superior can hear that the distortions created by digital have no existence in the real world outside of integrated circuits. They are alien sounds. Vinyl is still analog and largely mechanical making sounds our brains are more familiar with in the real world. They are generally higher in level though and this bothers the digital fans, who apparently don’t hear what is unnatural in digital playback.
So, it comes down to which sins you find less offensive and whether you can even hear what the other guy is talking about..
Every piece of vinyl I have ever heard, even on the best analog rigs has sounded slightly “dirty” and every piece of digital I have ever heard even with the most “analog” sounding DAC is still slightly artificial sounding, and I can see why either might bother someone off a format preference. I have just done my best to minimize the worst sins of each format so that I can enjoy them both.
If anyone here actually thinks that their cartridge is completely accurately tracing the grooves that were imperfectly cut driven by an imperfect amp and then imperfectly transferred through like 4 or 5 steps and then perhaps at the end of 10000 records off of that stamper…well then I have some prime Everglades real estate to sell you. Then your record players speed variability is further messing up the decoding of the encoded signal, plus whatever resonances are there from platter, arm etc. Then the distortion from the inverse RIAA and electronic circuit of the phonostage…again due to encoding limitations of vinyl. All of that gives a type of signature, which is nothing more or less than additive and subtractive deviations from perfect.
Digital has its own set of flaws, sampling limitations, aliasing, filters, pre-ringing, jitter etc. Etc.
The net effect is that the two formats sound quite different (although this might be more of an “audiophile “ difference) and probably will never sound the same because the fundamental errors created with each format are totally alien to the other format. Those who think vinyl distinctly superior can hear that the distortions created by digital have no existence in the real world outside of integrated circuits. They are alien sounds. Vinyl is still analog and largely mechanical making sounds our brains are more familiar with in the real world. They are generally higher in level though and this bothers the digital fans, who apparently don’t hear what is unnatural in digital playback.
So, it comes down to which sins you find less offensive and whether you can even hear what the other guy is talking about..
Every piece of vinyl I have ever heard, even on the best analog rigs has sounded slightly “dirty” and every piece of digital I have ever heard even with the most “analog” sounding DAC is still slightly artificial sounding, and I can see why either might bother someone off a format preference. I have just done my best to minimize the worst sins of each format so that I can enjoy them both.
One important point worth noting is that digital audio involves trading off a different set of distortion criteria than analog. Take an analog preamplifier or amplifier, regardless of whether it’s solid state or tube. Its distortion is usually independent of input or output levels, unless it is being overloaded at either end. So, it’s fairly common to see power amplifiers being rated as offering x% distortion over any output level from a few milliwatts to hundreds of watts (whatever the “x” is). This is absolutely not the case in digital.
Take Redbook CD standard, still the dominant recording standard for 99% of all albums (high res audio is still a very niche item). At 0dB, meaning full signal level, CD offers 96dB (16-bit) resolution. Impressive. Yes, but that’s a meaningless number. Music is not a 0dB signal. As music is often highly dynamic — a single oboe in an orchestra may be 50 dB down from 0dB — the actual distortion performance may not be that superior to analog tape. You can see this in published measurements of DACs where distortion grows quickly as the signal level is decreased. So, when you hear a DAC, its distortion is rapidly changing depending on input level.
Take Redbook CD standard, still the dominant recording standard for 99% of all albums (high res audio is still a very niche item). At 0dB, meaning full signal level, CD offers 96dB (16-bit) resolution. Impressive. Yes, but that’s a meaningless number. Music is not a 0dB signal. As music is often highly dynamic — a single oboe in an orchestra may be 50 dB down from 0dB — the actual distortion performance may not be that superior to analog tape. You can see this in published measurements of DACs where distortion grows quickly as the signal level is decreased. So, when you hear a DAC, its distortion is rapidly changing depending on input level.
i think getting into absolutes and generalizations does a disservice to the dialogue here. going overboard without a heavy dose of YMMV type qualifiers is wrong.
this is assuming we are considering very high level forms of both digital and analog. i would agree (my personal opinion not a fact) that digital fails by degrees to achieve the level of emotional engagement of better analog. but specifically emotional engagement is a matter of interpretation......and also characterizing it as unnecessary is a miss statement. just a bad word to use. digital conversion has many real world benefits....whether it is low on your personal preference or not.
I have never been bothered by the technical fact that distortions of vinyl are on some levels higher than those of digital, even though the distortions of digital are more "alien" as you say.
I have often vigorously defended the real-world sound capabilities of vinyl against ignorant "techno babble" digiphiles.
You can try to unwatch this thread , but i reckon u will come back lol.
Digital / analogue debates are like hotel California .
" You can check in any time you like , but you can never leave"
Last edited:
However. you don’t spin vinyl for music listening, which indicates a clear preference for digital. I have significant investment in both and use both regularly.
I must admit your follow-up is clever in talking about the recording media and particles and splitting polymer molecules. Sure, on that score with enough terrabytes of memory and you could claim that digital recording is continuous. But I don't think that is the continuity claimed for analog -- at least as I understand. That continuity is the continuity of time. Capturing sound as discrete quanta within some time period -- so many ones and zeros -- yields exactly that. Then repeat for the next time period. And those multiple samples must be put back together via a digital to analog converter. Put Back Together.
While tape may consist of "discrete suspended particles" the process of magnetizing it is time continuous. Earlier I talked about this as a sample of 1. The direct-to-disc recording feeds the audio signal directly to a lathe cutting head without dividing the result into whatever bit depth (bytes, words) represents content within a slice of time.
Fwiw, I see none of this as about musical engagement. I don't see this as a discussion about flaws in the process. I see it as an account about (some of) the difference between analog and digital processing. While those may be topics worthy of discussion, they are deflecting from that accounting. This is not "artificial" or useless as you write -- it seems quite reasonable to have an understanding about the differences between the different approaches.
So, as this is about musical engagement as you say, would you say that it is not possible for you to get musical engagement from digital? If the answer is no, its not possible then why is that? As I said above, I find it possible to be musically engaged with either format. I have found a sufficiently musical digital chain to truly enjoy listening to it. Likewise in analog, I have found sufficiently low in artifacts sounding gear to fully enjoy the vinyl experience.
Perhaps you need to try digital on the more "musical" and less analytical end of the scale (something like Aries Cerat, Ayon, Lampizator or Audio Note, for example)...you might be pleasantly surprised. I understand if you find the artifacts of digital unnatural...it can be very distracting.
read that last paragraph again
I did CDs for several years and have quite a collection of Classical music CDs. Several of my reviews from years back include CD examples andl istening commentary. About four years ago I stopped having interest in maintaining two formats and prefer to do just one as best I can.
No, I meant for YOU it is about musical engagement...not the side branches of the thread.
So you are saying that in some specific cases, no harm is done during the conversion process in terms of emotional engagement.
I thought you meant that good can come from the conversion process in terms of enhancement or something else. I was looking for specific examples.
I’ve never heard a digital presentation after conversion from the original analog that has more emotional engagement than the original analog presentation. Some seem to get close, but I’ve never heard the conversion process increase emotional engagement.
- Status
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |