Why do we love vinyl more than digital?
- Thread starter Snoop65
- Start date
- Status
i have listened to the AN NOS dacs twice this past year myself. they are nice. not amazingly so thou.
Yes, its in progress on this thread - http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?9121-The-Ozone-layer-modding-the-Lite-DAC-AH. Most of the technical details I've outlined in this thread though : http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?8858-Digital-that-sounds-like-analog
Technically R2R DACs are an inferior breed so your preference for vinyl makes sense to me. S-D DACs (ES9018 being the best example) in my estimation don't reach the heights of R2R.
Last edited:
The thread has really drifted off topic. It was started to hear the thoughts of other vinyl lovers on why they preferred vinyl. I respect those who prefer digital that is your preference but I don't want everybody attacking each others preferred medium. In the end it's all about what sounds best to you. There is no need to take the road Mr Opus has feeling the need to prove his way is better. If it make you happy that's all that matters. Technical info is always interesting but the ears and personal preference is the final judge. Carry on fellas!!!
Yes I don't consider those to be SOTA, they have obvious technical weaknesses
I do fully accept your point though about 15 or more years being a very long time to hold a memory. So it appears we've reached something of an impasse in our 'duel' - neither of us is up to date with listening to what the other side would consider 'world class' examples of the art.
The two DACs Bruce is obtaining (or has recently obtained) I don't consider SOTA either.
Last edited:
Heya Jerome,
thats interesting.
So with his thoughts of bouncing it once and something goes wrong; so what about studios that do the processing in PCM and store in DSD?
I asked on a different thread the following question (was more relating to DSD); how many studios both natively process and store in DSD without having to use conversion?
There is quite a lot of engineering chatter out there about the difficulties of maintaining perfect DSD when converting it to PCM, or just as critically even downsampling from DSD/upsampling to DSD.
Just curious if you know if this subject is a consideration for him.
Cheers
Orb
Thank you, any chance you could point to some specific posts? If not no problem, I'll find the time to read that thread sometime.
Can you expand on this? The two sentences read like contradictory statements to me.
In the absence of an objective metric, we must be reminded to always frame the qualifier "World Class" in the context of a person preferences. I know a person who can afford anything but chose to keep his SME 30 because in his opinion no table he's heard has yet compelled him to change... Is he wrong then? You have people comparing idler wheel TT to so-called SOTA designs and preferring the lowly idler pulley. Are they wrong too? Or is there an hitherto unknown consensus on a unique best way to do things in the High End?
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
There are many members here who I know own an SME30 and have for years and think it to be SOTA. I know cjfrbw owns one and I have heard it and found it to be very pleasant to listen to
Specific to what? Feel free to chip in on that thread with any questions you might want to ask about DACs. I'd prefer not to derail this thread by talking about my DAC design (much as its a subject close to my heart!).
As its tangential, more than happy to do that on that same thread, rather than here. Post up that question on there and I'll expand more.
Hi
RBCD seems to be the poor cousin of digital. it doesn't have to be.
@snoop65
Such discussion will always suffer from the digital vs analog debate drift syndrome because that it what it invites too. it is a discussion board and asking why someone loves his vinyl over digital will elicit replies to the contrary. I for one don't mind the technical tidbits. This is IMHO a very entertaining thread so far...
@microstrip
Very surprised by your take on digital, I must say. Not much do I find to debate on your last post. I also like the (scary) picture
RBCD seems to be the poor cousin of digital. it doesn't have to be.
@snoop65
Such discussion will always suffer from the digital vs analog debate drift syndrome because that it what it invites too. it is a discussion board and asking why someone loves his vinyl over digital will elicit replies to the contrary. I for one don't mind the technical tidbits. This is IMHO a very entertaining thread so far...
@microstrip
Very surprised by your take on digital, I must say. Not much do I find to debate on your last post. I also like the (scary) picture
Yes I don't consider those to be SOTA, they have obvious technical weaknesses
I do fully accept your point though about 15 or more years being a very long time to hold a memory. So it appears we've reached something of an impasse in our 'duel' - neither of us is up to date with listening to what the other side would consider 'world class' examples of the art.
i have to say that it strains credibility to infer that only your approved NOS dac is worthy of genuine SOTA redbook, and that somehow without that, proper respect to RBCD is not possible. and that with that magic RBCD somehow becomes a giant killer....all the time understanding you have no relevant context of listening to any other format at SOTA levels.
however; i respect that is your perspective.
i hope you can respect how that looks to others.
Well I accept that's how you see it, however seeing as you put it that way it does look somewhat warped from my pov. In particular 'only my approved' - that's nonsense. I just happen to have built a DAC which addresses fairly obvious technical weaknesses of NOS implementations (images, droop) which have been significant stumbling blocks to those of more objectivist persuasion from embracing NOS designs. Also 'giant killer' - your spin, as is 'proper respect', as is 'magic'.
I'm not claiming that my design is 'genuine SOTA RBCD' -far from it, as I'm fully aware of its weaknesses - it is after all a sub $250 BOM cost DAC. Even with fairly generous retail and distribution mark-ups that would translate to something under $1500 at retail. I'm merely pointing out that it does address significant technical issues that others ignore, or deem unimportant. If there wasn't a significant hole in the market for such a DAC, I'd not bother to design one.
Perhaps you'll now recognise that the perspective you've painted that 'strains credibility' is a substantially jaundiced one?
I envy you
- listening in this SOTA room it was one of my dreams during a long time. Do you consider that you have better sound quality in your room than what you perceived in ARA room?I think we need to clear up what is meant buy SOTA in this context - SOTA sound, or SOTA technical design. You explicitly say you do not consider Bruce's reference DACs ($43k MSB Diamond for PCM) "SOTA", and your $1500 DAC addresses technical compromises/weaknesses in this design (and any other design on the market today). Are you saying your design is more SOTA than the MSB (and any other DAC currently on the market) from a technical perspective, but it may not produce more "SOTA" sounds?
If your SOTA technical design does indeed produce better sound quality than the MSB it would indeed be a giant killer.
If not, are you saying that a $43K DAC using far more expensive components than your DAC, but based on inferior design principles may still sound better?
I envy you
Well my own room sucks as regards acoustics but I don't find that detracting from the fun of listening. My own speakers also aren't as transparent as A R-A's Quads (he had two pairs, arranged at 90 degrees). I didn't find his system particularly dynamic as the Quads don't play loud and the room is cavernous. I do get a lot more fun with my current system but that's just as likely to be because I built it myself and because I'm choosing what to play on it
That is pretty much what I'm saying. I don't consider a DAC design to be SOTA in terms of SQ until its been auditioned by a significant cross section of the community in various systems and a number have been built. Simply because the prototype sings well in my own system isn't sufficient for me to claim that. I wasn't commenting that Bruce's MSB isn't SOTA - I only was referring to the two latest acquisitions he's mentioned on WBF (Phasure and Lavry). I have insufficient technical knowledge of the workings of that particular MSB to be able to comment on that from a technical perspective. However if anyone has one they'd like to take hires internal pics of I'd jump at the chance to analyze them
If a sufficient number of experienced listeners agreed it was better then yes, I would concur.
Well I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I definitely know all the design principles that matter in DACs. So its entirely possible I might have missed an important one that MSB has discovered and addressed. The result therefore might be that theirs sounds better. I'm saying really that the two I'm addressing in my DAC are necessary but I'm not yet sure they're sufficient to give SOTA sound.
Hi
RBCD seems to be the poor cousin of digital. it doesn't have to be.
@snoop65
Such discussion will always suffer from the digital vs analog debate drift syndrome because that it what it invites too. it is a discussion board and asking why someone loves his vinyl over digital will elicit replies to the contrary. I for one don't mind the technical tidbits. This is IMHO a very entertaining thread so far...
@microstrip
Very surprised by your take on digital, I must say. Not much do I find to debate on your last post. I also like the (scary) picture
I agree with you Franz, but analog vs vinyl deserves it's own thread. I have no problem with technical info just as long as it is not used to justify why i should like one medium vs another. In the end it's all about the sound. Thank you for your positive input.
I hesitate to put my head into the lion's mouth, but can there be such a thing as sota?I doubt it.In the end, no matter how much you spend, personal preference is the final arbiter.I recently heard a three million dollar system, only analogue as the owner won't tolerate digital.It sounds pretty wonderful, as you might expect.I don't know of a more costly system in existence (probably are some) using only analogue.But it's not perfect.
As an indicator: the deck is a special build Rockport, one of just three created in 2012 with refinements well beyond the Sirius three(the owner has a range of Rockports alongside a Continum,Goldmund reference and various other decks.I've heard them all, and the special order Rockports are best, to my ears.Sadly,the technical genius behind these Rockports died a few months ago. The three specials were his last work.Given the horrendous cost and complexity, they may. well never be beaten.Commercially, they would need to cost around one million dollars.But they were only created to 'push the limit', not to make money.Is that sota? Must be, but that is still only an opinion.
Just to avoid confusion. The technical guy behind the Rockport 'specials' was called Tim Sheridan, and was a world-class authority on air bearing technology.He did work on the current NASA Mars mission, was involved in several very fine air bearing decks, and in the three '2012' Rockports, achieved consistent speed stability of one part per million.
He died late last year, still in his early 50s.
As an indicator: the deck is a special build Rockport, one of just three created in 2012 with refinements well beyond the Sirius three(the owner has a range of Rockports alongside a Continum,Goldmund reference and various other decks.I've heard them all, and the special order Rockports are best, to my ears.Sadly,the technical genius behind these Rockports died a few months ago. The three specials were his last work.Given the horrendous cost and complexity, they may. well never be beaten.Commercially, they would need to cost around one million dollars.But they were only created to 'push the limit', not to make money.Is that sota? Must be, but that is still only an opinion.
Just to avoid confusion. The technical guy behind the Rockport 'specials' was called Tim Sheridan, and was a world-class authority on air bearing technology.He did work on the current NASA Mars mission, was involved in several very fine air bearing decks, and in the three '2012' Rockports, achieved consistent speed stability of one part per million.
He died late last year, still in his early 50s.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |