Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?
- Thread starter godofwealth
- Start date
- Status
This is a crazy statement, IMHO. I have spent a decent amount of time at Mike Lavigne's house, where he certainly has the "top digital" and top analog. Furthermore, his speakers, despite what anyone says here, are the most revealing I've ever heard. In addition to the detail, you could SWIM in the soundstage. My point is, it's a good test bed for checking out the best of all sources.
In all my visits to Mike, I have never once preferred the digital side to the vinyl side. Not making a dig at Wadax, it's just a different feeling and it's not as engaging to my ears.
Now, if you mean "on paper" digital is better, I guess in some ways that might be true but certainly not in practice.
In my system, I admit it is a closer race, and depending on the source material, sometimes digital wins and vice versa. I still mostly prefer vinyl.
Exactly right. This has been my experience too, and it seems consistent with what Mike is saying about his experience with his various sources.
They would say that…without any regard for which is psychoacoustically less disturbing. The nature of the distortion is again possibly more important than the amount.
More pleasant distortion masking lower level but less pleasant distortion?
Indeed, they listen to other things and other distortions than many high-end enthusiasts do when it comes to assessing accuracy and quality of sound.
There is also a varying sensitivity to digital artifacts, including among recording engineers.
Dismissing the opinions of recording engineers therefore based on their allegedly inferior equipment etc. is not very convincing.
In addition it should be mentioned that there is also digital that is much freer of format-specific artifacts than typical digital and thus much less psychoacoustically disturbing, if at all (how this exactly will be perceived will, again, depend on the individual listener).
Agreed. But again, the distortions of both formats will be differently assessed by recording engineers than by high-end enthusiasts, since both types of listeners will be listening to different things.
***
BTW, I consider your post the best answer so far to my "challenge".
I easily accept that in Mike system vinyl sounds better than digital. What I say it is just a data point and probably there are good reasons why. It does not mean however that one format is in absolute better sounding than the other.
Curious that you consider my general technical statement as a "crazy statement" and move sideways, referring to your subjective answer in Mike system. Interesting, but not relevant.
An evasive answer, thanks, but curiously I saw and heard them - it is why I wrote what I posted. Surely it is just a data point.
Everything is subjective, I get it. So you'd need to find something that most agree on.
Mike's system is one of the best in the world. It's not some insignificant data point. It's a hell of a lot more than "interesting, but not relevant". I think most that hear it would agree.
That's my point in bringing it up, you're not going to find a better playground in which you can test such a theory. It doesn't exist.
Fortunately many will have a better answer ...
BTW, most of them will not even think about distortion, they will address just noise.
Unfortunately the great debates on analog versus digital involving professionals predate the internet and were written on paper - they will be ignored by most people. The great majority of sound engineers writing in the net have no real experience with tape or vinyl cutting.
That too.
Yes, and delving into the history of the development of digital makes clear that engineers back then genuinely were looking for something better.
It was not just the search for convenience which caused the switch to digital, unlike what the old and tired audiophile myth wants us to believe.
Technical arguments are not subjective, they are objective.
Nice to have your opinion. I am not interested in debating Mike system or preferences. Just referred to my personnel experiences with gear of the same manufacturers.
I friendly disagree with you. I now believe you misunderstood my post, I do not have exposed any theory, my apologies.
of course, Sony and Philips were completely altruistic in their motives.
OTOH we might get very blue if we held our breath until they give back their multi-billions of revenue from the CD Redbook license fees. not to mention the cost reductions from music media production.....and even lower music recording production costs.
technical creators certainly had their contribution and i'm sure they were doing something they believed in, paid for by corporate greed. no one died or animals hurt. just how things go.
i'm happy with digital and it's various formats and i appreciate progress. streaming is very cool and i'm all in every day.
but.....follow the money is where the truth is. and what makes things happen.
Last edited:
Besides reissuing music catalogs and lowering recording costs, Sony and Philips and then others were able to sell a lot of new boxes too. It seems people replace/upgrade digital boxes (and cables) more than they do turntables and tonearms, at least here on WBF.
It is like compression.I consider sentences without the use of capital letters incomplete.
One interesting anecdote from several decades ago in The Absolute Sound, when digital was not as advanced — no streaming and CD was king. They did a profile of the legendary recording engineer Kenneth Wilkinson (“Wilkie”) who was responsible for many of Decca’s legendary recordings. He also did a fair number of recordings for Lyrita. He’s probably made several thousand recordings, from grand opera to chamber music to full symphony orchestras.
It’s fair to say Wilkie knew the live sound of music intimately. He agreed in the interview that digital was a great lossless way to copy and distribute music (hence its use in streaming), but was rather unhappy that record companies were discontinuing releases on vinyl. DG of course was the first to do so, and now, a few decades later, guess what, they’re back to pressing vinyl again, because there’s a revenue stream to be exploited. In the interview, Wilkie did not feel digital remastering of analog recordings sounded as good as the original master tape. Of course, we are talking mid-to-late 80’s (I cannot recall the exact date date of the TAS article), and digital has come a long way since then.
It’s fair to say Wilkie knew the live sound of music intimately. He agreed in the interview that digital was a great lossless way to copy and distribute music (hence its use in streaming), but was rather unhappy that record companies were discontinuing releases on vinyl. DG of course was the first to do so, and now, a few decades later, guess what, they’re back to pressing vinyl again, because there’s a revenue stream to be exploited. In the interview, Wilkie did not feel digital remastering of analog recordings sounded as good as the original master tape. Of course, we are talking mid-to-late 80’s (I cannot recall the exact date date of the TAS article), and digital has come a long way since then.
I have both too. And I have tape. My tape is definitely the best. But I don't find myself every feeling I am listening to a hobbled media when I play digital. It doesn't cross my mind. I am aware of bad recordings. 60% of my classical records should be melted in bowls and used to hold plants. 20% are outstanding. My tape is more consistently very very good. Even so, I am considering selling the tape machine and the 70 plus tapes I have acquired. Even if upon critical listening the tape is the best, I don't find the digital unpleasant at all. Especially since I don't notice unless I'm in the mood to put on my audiophile ears and go through the process of switching between sources. If I don't make a direct compare, I find digital is fantastic. So the whole what's the best media does not cross my mind. The whole of the system I have put together that gets me to a very high level of playback is far more important than what source I am using. So I play the source that makes me feel good at the moment.I do believe most of us can enjoy digital, but just prefer analog. I almost always own one or more digital version of the recordings i listen to, i just rarely prefer them to vinyl.
And I agree with Microstrip. I feel he has a point. I would agree there are system topology that would favor one source over the other. As well as the type of music played on the system. Add to that the subjective preference on how you like to hear your music. I was listening to a highly resolving system one time, and while the vinyl was technically better, I found I preferred the digital playback on certain musical genera. I don't think the owner would agree. And a strange system can be sonically overwhelming. Sometimes you have to ease into something new. So taming it back might be easier to digest for a guest.
It can also go the other way. I know a guy with SS everything and all digital. While its technically all correct and shows room sweeps that are far better than my room, I just don't find any engagement and enjoyment listening to this setup. I have no idea why. Technically the room and system are right there. But the musical engagement isn't for me. It is for him. He walks around proud as can be bragging his head off. But I would not keep what he has if It was given to me. Most of it would go to Audiogon.
Seems that way to me too. Digital as streaming seems unsettled. CD seems more mature at least in terms of transports. Regular news about new Dacs. Cables typically are less costly to change than the components the connect
There’s an interesting parallel with digital cameras vs. analog film. As digital cameras have become progressively higher resolution, there’s a sense among amateur and professional photographers that “the baby is being thrown out with the bath water”, metaphorically speaking. All these 100-megapixel cameras give you a very sharp image, but it’s not as pleasing to the eye as film. One of the hottest new medium format cameras by Fuji offers a wide selection of “film modes” to restore some natural analog warmth of film. Many leading Hollywood cinematographers and directors still prefer to work with film cameras for that reason.
Resolution is not the-be-all-end-all in either high end audio or photography. One has to balance resolution with naturality, otherwise the ear or eye does not find it pleasing. It’s an intrinsic subjective balance. Great concerts halls are those that provide the ambient warmth that make an orchestra sound pleasing to the ear. It’s a distortion that is introduced to make the sound pleasing. The disaster that occurred in 1962 in Avery Fisher Hall in Lincoln Center when Leonard Bernstein conducted was because the poorly designed hall created such a sonic mess that the orchestra members could not hear each other playing. After 50 years, they’re still trying to fix this mess with a half a billion dollar renovation. It’s never going to sound as gorgeous as the great concert halls in Europe.
“That first evening, patrons — Jackie Kennedy, Nelson Rockefeller, Dean Rusk and Adlai Stevenson among them — mounted escalators to an auditorium that was a symphony in deep blue and gold, with swooping balconies. Leonard Bernstein, classical music’s answer to the Beatles, strode onstage. The New York Philharmonic exploded with the first exultant notes of “Gloria” from Beethoven’s “Missa Solemnis.”
And everyone with ears instantly realized that the new hall was a disaster.
Musicians couldn’t hear each other. Listeners couldn’t hear the violas and cellos. Trumpets, trombones and clarinets echoed like yodelers in the Alps. Bernstein later described an “acoustical-psychological” effect: in such an extremely big, long hall, where nearly a third of the audience was more than 100 feet from the stage, the orchestra, which doesn’t use amplification, sounded distant because it appeared as if “through the wrong end of a telescope.”
“Tear the place down and start over again,” was George Szell’s verdict after conducting the Cleveland Orchestra there.”
Resolution is not the-be-all-end-all in either high end audio or photography. One has to balance resolution with naturality, otherwise the ear or eye does not find it pleasing. It’s an intrinsic subjective balance. Great concerts halls are those that provide the ambient warmth that make an orchestra sound pleasing to the ear. It’s a distortion that is introduced to make the sound pleasing. The disaster that occurred in 1962 in Avery Fisher Hall in Lincoln Center when Leonard Bernstein conducted was because the poorly designed hall created such a sonic mess that the orchestra members could not hear each other playing. After 50 years, they’re still trying to fix this mess with a half a billion dollar renovation. It’s never going to sound as gorgeous as the great concert halls in Europe.
“That first evening, patrons — Jackie Kennedy, Nelson Rockefeller, Dean Rusk and Adlai Stevenson among them — mounted escalators to an auditorium that was a symphony in deep blue and gold, with swooping balconies. Leonard Bernstein, classical music’s answer to the Beatles, strode onstage. The New York Philharmonic exploded with the first exultant notes of “Gloria” from Beethoven’s “Missa Solemnis.”
And everyone with ears instantly realized that the new hall was a disaster.
Musicians couldn’t hear each other. Listeners couldn’t hear the violas and cellos. Trumpets, trombones and clarinets echoed like yodelers in the Alps. Bernstein later described an “acoustical-psychological” effect: in such an extremely big, long hall, where nearly a third of the audience was more than 100 feet from the stage, the orchestra, which doesn’t use amplification, sounded distant because it appeared as if “through the wrong end of a telescope.”
“Tear the place down and start over again,” was George Szell’s verdict after conducting the Cleveland Orchestra there.”
- Status
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |