Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Rexp]

Here is a fun and interesting video on the topic:

He correctly stated that his digitally recorded album sounded good on vinyl and then incorrectly stated that good sounding digitally recorded vinyl doesn't sound any better than CD. What he misses is the vinyl and the CD master are usually quite different and it is the master that determines sound quality.

 

[Kingrex]

Rex, I would make a distinction here. You are saying two different things.

1. Digital versus vinyl sources are very similar.
2. It is easy to be fooled by what you are listening to.

I have rarely heard vinyl and digital sound similar to each other in the same system playing the same music. However, on a few rare occasions, I have found it difficult to identify what I am hearing as one or the other.

If both digital and vinyl are of a similar level of quality, it is sometimes difficult to walk into a room having not heard a system before and be able to quickly identify the source as digital or vinyl. However, if that same system has both and they are then played for you one after the other, they usually sound quite different from each other.

What I was trying to say was, if you had a decent digital and a decent vinyl setup at your house, and I came over with my own records and a flash drive of my music, and played something but did not tell you which source I was playing, you may very well guess wrong. I believe digital and vinyl are very close in performance.
This would be for many people. Not all of course. Some users are so dialed into their systems they would know. Or so they say. I have heard about blind test with some well known members who have tripped up in their own systems when someone played blind test sources for them. We all like to thing we know our stuff. Until we are put to the test. I know if would be easy to trick me in my system. For the most part I would try to listen for a pop or click. If that was not there, I would probably have a hard time distinguishing which was which.

So, if what I am saying is true. Who gives a hoot about what is supposedly the best source. Unless of course your bagging on my tape.

 

[Rexp]

No gimmicks or slight of hand here, just some honest appraisal of comparisons we did on my system (listed below): Note, in both comparisons I had to turn down volume two clicks when switching to the MoFi as they were recorded a bit hotter/louder (perhaps not enough though).

comparison one: (myself and three other audiophiles in attendance),

Acetate/Lacquer of Marvin Gaye "What's Going On", "Archival Tape Edition No. 011, cut from Master Tape (no59/99) at Supersense, Vienna on 13/Oct/2023; The above compared with a 45 RPM Ultradisc One-Step Pressing on "Supervinyl" by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab which, I believe, was Master Tape through A2D processing into DSD64, from that through D2A processing to Lacquer, to Covert, to Vinyl (no4471/7500).

Results: Listener no 1 (listens to digital predominately), preferred the clarity of the MoFi record. He commented on all the HiFi aspects (sound stage, bass extension, clarity of voice and instruments) and thought it would be the record he would demo if I ever wanted to sell my system. Listener no 2 (listens to both, but predominately digital), preferred the acetate. He felt the pure analogue recording more real sounding, more relaxing to listen to. Listener no 3 (predominately analogue listener) preferred the acetate as well. Although he didn't think he could tell a difference on his home system, on mine he heard more air around instruments and voice on the pure analogue recording. Myself (predominately analogue), I preferred the pure analogue acetate recording by a fair degree. My perception is that the MoFi recording is a bit sharp/etched in presentation which does sound clearer or more distinct, and also draws one's attention to the various elements of HiFi, whereas the music played off the Supersense Acetate just wafted over me like live music. My feelings at the time were that I could listen to this sort of thing all day, but would probably stop listening after perhaps two sides of the MoFi as it causes some sort of discomfort in me.


Comparison two: (just the wife and I listening),

Electric Recording Company recording of Crosby, Stills & Nash, (ERC080) tape loop mastered with simple levelling from the Analogue master tape through all-valve amplification to the lacquer on the Ortophon cutter, then to convert to vinyl, limited production (no297/450). This was compared to a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultradisc One-Step Pressing on Supervinyl that was transferred from Master Tape to DSD128 (I believe), through some A2D processing, then D2A, Lacquer, Convert, Vinyl (no4738/12,000).

Results: Listener no 1 (the Goode Wife, rarely listens, doesn't follow the hobby so calls it as she hears it), preferred the MoFi DSD128-to-Analogue recording over the pure analogue ERC LP. She cited the "clarity" as being the reason. Listener no 2 (myself), I preferred the ERC, but by only a very slight margin. My reasons were greater air/3-dimentionality of the pure analogue recording. Example; when Stephen Stills sings "It's my heart..." in Judy Blue Eyes, on the analogue recording it sounds as if he is standing right of centre facing left where the microphone was placed. When he sings "it's my heart..." you can tell that he is turning his head to the right away from the microphone and then the voice comes back slightly delayed from the back wall of the recording studio...with the MoFi, it just sounds as if the volume is turned down where he stands. Similar 3-D effects lost when the guy on the left of centre sings in Spanish, on ERC slight head movements give 3-D impression of head singing, whereas with the MoFi, to me anyway, sounds like a speaker there making the clear voice but very 2-D.

Why did the MoFi come closer to matching analogue with the second example, hard to say. It could be the advantage of acetate over subsequent pressings, even if the subsequent pressings were at 45RPM. It could be that the CS&N MoFi, being recorded at a faster sampling rate (DSD128) makes it sound closer to analogue. One finding I haven't yet mentioned, the ERC recording of CS&N was not as fantastic-sounding as I had anticipated it would be. I watched a review of other re-pressings compared with original pressings on YouTube where the reviewer claimed that the original mastering wasn't great. So why would that make a difference in favour of the digital recording? I think, perhaps, that it is like photo-editing on your computer (in the digital realm). Very nice photos can be screwed up if you add colour and sharpness whereas not so nice photos can be improved greatly using those tools. Perhaps the Marvin Gaye was so good to begin with that MoFi didn't fiddle with the bass or treble except to turn up the volume a bit overall. The CS&N master tape, however, could do with some cleaning up and that corrected it enough to sound nearly as good (or better per my wife) as the pure analogue ERC version? I don't know, what do you all think?

I think this comes down to some folks being more sensitive to digital distortion (as yet unmeasurable) than others.

 

[AudioGod]

The only important Question is
If the vinyl master is *exactly* the same as the digital master , which will sound better ?
Second question is
If most modern masters are digital
How is it possible to vinyl to sound better than digital , Becaue Digital to digital should have 0 loss of quality , where as digital to vinyl , is a totally different story .

 

[treitz3]

No, it does not. Copying and pasting a digital file results in an identical copy.

I would personally beg to differ based upon blind listening tests in front of over 20 people who laughed until I heard and pointed out the differences.

I will leave it to the rest of you to decide on why/how because I simply do not care but "bit for bit" isn't exactly "bit for bit".

Tom

 

[treitz3]

The only important Question is
<snip>

Let me please ask you one more time, AG. I am in no way confronting you but this puts things into context for many of the members here at the WBF.

When was the last time you listened to a really good vinyl set up?

Next question - What was the gear/level of playback of said vinyl system?

Next Question - Were you able to do a direct comparison of vinyl on the same system as the digital, listening to the same song selection(s)?

Tom

 

[treitz3]

Here is the thing, AG. You want to talk about something so near and dear to your heart, yet you (at the same time) aren't. Communication does not work like this.

You liked said post but have still not responded. This is not communicating and discussing the topic at hand....which you have repeatedly stated that this is what you want to do on this thread. This is typically considered trolling and is not acceptable. It may not be against the TOS of this forum but with your constant rebuttals about the sound difference of vinyl versus digital? You do need to answer said questions....and not just hit a "like" button.

Tom

 

[AudioGod]

Here is the thing, AG. You want to talk about something so near and dear to your heart, yet you (at the same time) aren't. Communication does not work like this.

You liked said post but have still not responded. This is not communicating and discussing the topic at hand....which you have repeatedly stated that this is what you want to do on this thread. This is typically considered trolling and is not acceptable. It may not be against the TOS of this forum but with your constant rebuttals about the sound difference of vinyl versus digital? You do need to answer said questions....and not just hit a "like" button.

Tom

Like I said
My experience is different than the mainstream audiophile as I mainly experience with pro gear and less audiophile hifi.
And I've heard hifi and pro gear and preferred the pro stuff
So yeah I may have less "mainstream "experience but I'm experienced enough to say that to me digital is much more accurate as a format .
I've heard some vinyl and DACs in the same systems , and came to the same conclusion .
Was it a super ultra hi end vinyl rig ? probably not .
But still good enough to come to this conclusion

 

[treitz3]

Deflection is not an answer. You say you are experienced, well? Tell us what that experience is!

I would venture to say that a VAST majority of this forum does not listen to "Pro gear". This is akin to apples and oranges to what you and the rest of us are talking about.

"Good enough to you" is nowhere near what you should be answering with the incessant rambling on about the differences between vinyl and digital reproductive efforts. A discussion is just that. If you are not willing to discuss what you are rambling on about?

Tom

 

[AudioGod]

Deflection is not an answer. You say you are experienced, well? Tell us what that experience is!

I would venture to say that a VAST majority of this forum does not listen to "Pro gear". This is akin to apples and oranges to what you and the rest of us are talking about.

"Good enough to you" is nowhere near what you should be answering with the incessant rambling on about the differences between vinyl and digital reproductive efforts. A discussion is just that. If you are not willing to discuss what you are rambling on about?

Tom

Well I just told you my experience
I can't help it that it's different than what most people have here .
That's a fact.
I don't deal with vinyl for most of my life but heard enough ,read enough , researched enough to know that I prefer digital .
Besides it's not the amount that counts it's the quality
Someone could have tons of experience (Like I said I probably have the most with pro gear around here )
And still build a crappy system even after 50 years of so called experience .
And you could have theoritcaly less experience and build a better system for less $$$ Becaue you have a better insight

 

[treitz3]

Besides it's not the amount that counts it's the quality

Of which you, sir, have displayed none of. We wish you well in life.

Tom

 

[Rexp]

I would personally beg to differ based upon blind listening tests in front of over 20 people who laughed until I heard and pointed out the differences.

I will leave it to the rest of you to decide on why/how because I simply do not care but "bit for bit" isn't exactly "bit for bit".

Tom

I would take an experienced audiophile's hearing over current scientific reasoning any day. Current scientific methods do not provide the answers as to why digital playback sounds the way it does and anyone who thinks it does is truly a flat earther.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I would personally beg to differ based upon blind listening tests in front of over 20 people who laughed until I heard and pointed out the differences.

I will leave it to the rest of you to decide on why/how because I simply do not care but "bit for bit" isn't exactly "bit for bit".

Tom

Please share the details of that experiment, you will be famous if you can prove that you are able to do this.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I would take an experienced audiophile's hearing over current scientific reasoning any day. Current scientific methods do not provide the answers as to why digital playback sounds the way it does and anyone who thinks it does is truly a flat earther.

To be fair, I think it's the flat earthers who refuse to trust current scientific reasoning, not the other way around.

 

[RCanelas]

Again, it would be important to be able to distinguish things clearly so we can get to the root of the issue. The distinction I raised before between the file (or a copy) and reproducing said file are important.

I'm comfortable making the categorical statement that, if it was indeed a copy, the files are identical. Not just functionally identical, but strictly identical even considering they reside on different places on the disk with different word alignments. If you play two file copies, on the same disk, one after the other, they must sound identical, under the penalty of everything we know and built being wrong. File is the same, reproduction chain is the same. It is akin to playing the same file again. If there is a difference, it should be felt also on successive renderings of the same file, and something along the reproduction path is glaringly not deterministic (there are things, like clocks). Notice the irony that rendering any file, usually, requires making a copy. Either to a temp directory or at least to volatile memory. So you're always making copies. Curiously I never heard anyone claiming successive plays are different, only when they are informed there is a copy. Then suddenly there is a ghost in the machine.

If you copied the file to another disk, all bets are off on my side. The reproduction chain is not the same, even tough the file is, there are possibly different drivers and controllers, different connections on the path. I can't imagine what would change, but I have no reason to be categorical anymore.

TLDR: you may be hearing differences, you may be misidentifying the why of those differences.

 

[ssfas]

I have a QNAP server at home and I sincerely hope digital files are not changed in any way when copied, as I'm doing it all the time.

I don't keep music on the QNAP, but I use it as a Roon Server (Roon Core). I used to keep my music files on an Innuos Zen Mk3 server. I then bought an Innuos Pulsar streamer and started experimenting.

Firstly, I'm a big fan of Roon, but don't use it in my main system. I prefer Innuos Sense. I use Roon around the house, in about 10 zones, through about 30 Roon Ready devices.

Innuos are convinced that sound deteriorates with more processing and processor noise. I was using the Zen Mk3 as a Roon Core, music store and Roon transport over usb. That's fantastic functionality in one box, but a lot of processing.

Innuos's preferred option for Pulsar is to use it as an endpoint and take as much processing away, whether using Roon, HDPlex or Sense. So using a Zen server as processor into a Pulsar is ideal. I tried both the Roon and Sense options. When you stream, the Zen gets the file and sends the data to the Pulsar. At the other extreme, I could use the Pulsar in standalone mode using Roon.

One of the options was putting some music on the QNAP and using that both as the Roon Core and music store.

At the end of the day, there are so many different options of hardware and software configuration, for all the theorising, you just have to play with it.

A separate Innuos server was excellent, but another cupboard of boxes (server and conditioner). Using Roon on the QNAP was the worst. I settled for putting my music files on a $200 network drive and putting a reclocking switch just before the Pulsar streamer. The latter is also Innuos' recommendation, to put their PhoenixNET switch before the streamer. I got a bespoke one from Fidelity Audio.

Everything in my system is on good power supplies, there is both CAT 6a and fibre. The only thing I know is that, whilst routing and set-up may change the data never changes.

One of the biggest difference between vinyl and digital streaming is that with vinyl you have a clear analogue signal path from the cartridge, but with streaming you can have multiple different options, several of them pure software driven.

 

[hopkins]

Vis à vis file copying, I don't know how that came into the discussion (Grundman certainly had other things in mind than simply file "copying" when he mentioned quality issues with material received from labels), but I have performed bit-perfect tests dozens of time on the same test files copied on different drives and there is absolutely no change (bit perfect remains bit perfect).

As stated by @RCanelas: "you may be hearing differences, you may be misidentifying the why of those differences"

File integrity is (almost) never the issue.

 

[hopkins]

.
At the end of the day, there are so many different options of hardware and software configuration, for all the theorising, you just have to play with it.

In my experience (and many others') different DACs exhibit different sensitivity to the noise spectrum and jitter of the incoming digital signal. Everything you mention, and more, affects the content (including the noise spectrum) of that signal - that's a fact! What is open for debate are the consequences of that fact (in terms of SQ).

This is a controversial subject. It has been since the start of digital audio and continues to this day. It is not going to be settled here and now!

 

[MarkusBarkus]

Curiously I never heard anyone claiming successive plays are different, only when they are informed there is a copy. Then suddenly there is a ghost in the machine.

...I *suspect* if a listener put a favorite digital file on a repeat loop for an hour, by the end, they would think things sounded different. And maybe it would sound different, but probably *not* due to the gear. Just a thought (experiment). One could make it two, or three hours. All day long, noting differences along the way.

 

[ssfas]

In my experience (and many others') different DACs exhibit different sensitivity to the noise spectrum and jitter of the incoming digital signal. Everything you mention, and more, affects the content (including the noise spectrum) of that signal - that's a fact! What is open for debate are the consequences of that fact (in terms of SQ).

This is a controversial subject. It has been since the start of digital audio and continues to this day. It is not going to be settled here and now!

The hardware aspect of the Pulsar choice is the fact that it is dedicated to USB, and the Holo May DAC is also optimised for USB. So in terms of noise spectrum and jitter, they are pretty much made for each other.

Of course around that price point some products really are made for each other, like the Aqua streamer and DAC, which have a proprietary I2S link.

I don't think these various aspects of streaming/digital are controversial. As streaming has developed, and I bought my first streamer in 2010, ideas of how to do it well have pretty much coalesced.

I think the only thing that really comes out of this argument is that at the budget end you get better sound from digital than analogue. That may not be terribly relevant here at WBF, but it is very relevant to 99% of everyone else, which is why streaming dominates the music distribution market.